ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - The Petitioner wants that the order of the Nyaya Panchayat dated 10-9-1966 and 23-9-1966, be quashed. 2. Yadu Nath Singh, Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint against the Petitioner and some others u/s 504, IPC read with Section 53 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act. On receipt of the summons the Petitioner appeared on the due date, namely 23-8-1966. The order sheet of the Nyaya Panchayat of that date states that the complaint was read over to the Adalat as well as the Petitioner. The Petitioner accepted it. A bond of Rs. 100/- was taken from the Petitioner. The bond that was got executed from the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner would attend the court whenever called and take the punishment if any is awarded to him. Clause 2 stated that the Petitioner would not commit breach of the peace. It is noticeable that the bond did not mention any period of time for which it was to last. On 10-9-1966, the Nyaya Panchayat directed the forfeiture of the bond on the ground that the Petitioner had absented himself from the court on that date. On the next date, namely 23-9-1966, the Nyaya Panchayat issued attachment warrants for realisation of the money mentioned in the bond, namely Rs. 100/- . The Petitioner thereupon applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the setting aside of this order as also for the transfer of the case. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that no ground for transfer had been made out. He did not deal with the prayer for the setting aside of the order for recovery of Rs. 100/- . 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in his submission that there is no provision in the UP Panchayat Raj Act authorising a Nyaya Panchayat to demand a bond for attendance on the dates of hearing either in a civil or a criminal case. The Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to direct the Petitioner, who was an accused in a criminal case before it, to execute a bond for that reason. 4. u/s 78 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act the Nyaya Panchayat is entitled to hear and decide even a criminal case in the absence of the accused if the summons have been served upon him and if he has been informed of the time and place of the hearing. 4. u/s 78 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act the Nyaya Panchayat is entitled to hear and decide even a criminal case in the absence of the accused if the summons have been served upon him and if he has been informed of the time and place of the hearing. u/s 87 if any person, who is summoned by a Nyaya Panchayat to appear to give evidence or to produce any document before it, wilfully disobeys such summons, the Nyaya Panchayat can make a complaint to the Magistrate and the person is liable to punishment with fine which may extend to Rs. 25/- . All these provisions exhaustively deal with the topic of summoning and the effect of disobeying the summons of the Nyaya Panchayat. The Nyaya Panchayat has no power to demand a personal bond for appearance. From this point of view the bond taken from the Petitioner was invalid. 5. Section 53 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act contemplates the Nyaya Panchayat to call upon a person to show cause why he should not execute a bond for an amount not exceeding Rs. 100/- with or without sureties for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding 15 days. The Sarpanch is to issue such a notice and then refer the matter to a Bench. No such notice was issued to the Petitioner. At the very first hearing the Nyaya Panchayat directed the Petitioner to execute the personal bond. This procedure was in contravention of Section 53. Then, Section 53(1) authorises the Nyaya Panchayat to call for a bond for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding 15 days. The bond executed in the present case did not specify any time during which the Petitioner was required to keep the peace. From all these angles it is clear that the Nyaya Panchayat exceeded its jurisdiction in demanding a personal bond from the Petitioner. 6. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order directing the Petitioner to execute a bond as also the subsequent orders forfeiting it and the proceedings for recovery of the amount of the bond are quashed. As no one appears for Respondent No. 3, there will be no order as to costs.