GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This Criminal re­vision is placed before this Full Bench without any referring order as required under the High Court Rules. All the same, having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we may frame the question In the following term: "Whether the decision In the case of U. Bithiang Malangiang v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1965 Assam and Nagaland 51, which is a Division Bench decision of this Court, has been correctly made". The second point which is necessary for consideration is whether a certain trial under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner Shillong, Is competent under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. In other words, whether the Judge, District Council Court, has exclusive jurisdiction for trial of such a case under these Rules. It may be stated here that the learned Counsel for the petitioners felt that the decision above referred to needs reconsideration and that is why, we have entertained this case before the Full Bench. 2. The facts of the case are that on 7th February, 1966, a complaint was lodged by the Opposite Party No. 1 against the ac­cused petitioners and the Police after in­vestigation of the case submitted charge-sheet under Section 147/448/427, Indian Penal Code and the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner took cognizance of that charge-sheet and proceeded with the trial. 3. It is admitted that both parties be­long to the Scheduled Tribes (Khasi tri-bals) and the place of occurrence is also within the autonomous District of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills. The petitioners, there­fore, moved the Additional Deputy Com­missioner for transferring the case to the Judge, District Council Court and by order dated 17-5-1967 that Court rejected the application relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court above refer­red to. 4. Mr. Guha, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, relies upon a notifica­tion of the Governor dated 26-11-1966 for his submission that the Judge. District Council Court alone had exclusive juris­diction to try the cases. The notificatkw may be set out: "Dated Shillong, the 26th Novembw; 1966.No. TAD/GA/234/66/11:- In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-para­graph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of Assam is pleased to confer on Shri B. R. Laso. District Council Court alone had exclusive juris­diction to try the cases. The notificatkw may be set out: "Dated Shillong, the 26th Novembw; 1966.No. TAD/GA/234/66/11:- In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-para­graph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of Assam is pleased to confer on Shri B. R. Laso. Judge District Council Court, United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, with the powers to try offences punishable with Imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law for the time being applicable to the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District". We fail to understand how this notification assists the learned counsel in this case to exclude the jurisdiction of the Assist­ant to the Deputy Commissioner for trial of the offences of which he took cogni­zance. We have in Chapter II of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 hereinafter called 'the Rules' the dif­ferent classes of Courts, namely, ffi Village Courts (ii) Subordinate Dintriet Council Court and Additional Subordinate District Council Court, and (iii) District Council Court. Chapter III describes the powers of the Courts. Rule 21, which is material is in the following terms: "21. Courts not competent to try suits and cases in respect of certain offences.- (1) A Subordinate District Council Court or an Additional Subordinate District Council Court shall not be competent to try suits and cases in respect of offences- (i)under Sections 124-A, 147 and 153 of the Indian Penal Code, (ii) under Chapter X of the same Code in so far as they relate to the con­tempt of a lawful authority other than an authority constituted by the District Council, (iii) of giving or fabricating false evi­dence.................. * * * The rest is not material for our purpose in this case. Rule 22 may be set out: "22. (1) Suits and cases referred to in Rule 21 shall continue to be tried and dealt with by the existing Courts until such time as the Governor deems fit to invest the Subordinate District Council Court and Additional Subordinate District Council Court with such powers by noti­fication in the Gazette. Rule 22 may be set out: "22. (1) Suits and cases referred to in Rule 21 shall continue to be tried and dealt with by the existing Courts until such time as the Governor deems fit to invest the Subordinate District Council Court and Additional Subordinate District Council Court with such powers by noti­fication in the Gazette. (2) For the purposes of this rule the ex­isting Courts mean the Courts of the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistant." Since under Rule 21 the Subordinate Dis­trict Council Court is not competent to try an offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, the jurisdiction of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner to try these of­fences is saved by Rule 22. That is the short answer to the submissions made by the learned Counsel. But says Mr. Guha that the Judge, District Council Court, has simple powers to try offences of this kind and the notification of the Governor set above clearly gives him jurisdiction to try the offences of this description between the members of the Scheduled tribes. As pointed out earlier, the Judge, District Council Court has been given powers under the relevant paragraph of the Sixth Schedule to try certain offences mention­ed therein. That notification does not re­late to the jurisdiction to try offences of the description which arises for considera­tion in this case. That notification cannot be called in aid for the purpose of em­powering the Judge, District Council Court, to try an offence originally under Section 147. Indian Penal Code. We are, therefore, satisfied that the learned Assis­tant to the Deputy Commissioner is com­petent to proceed with the trial of the case in his Court. The decision which was arrived at by a Division Bench of this Court in AIR 1965 Assam and Nagaland 51 (supra), with all respect, is correct al­though we find an additional reason for coming to the same conclusion reached in that case. 5. The petition is accordingly rejected. D. M. SEN. J.:-- 6. I agree.' PATHAK, J.:- 7. I agree. Petition rejected.