Judgment Bahadur, J. In this case the two petitioners have applied to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution or setting aside an order dated 14-11-1968, passed by a Gram Cutcherry, by which they were convicted for offences under Section 379 of the Penal Code and both of them were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15/- each in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. 2. On behalf of the petitioners, the main contention put forward by Mr. Brajkishore Prasad is that there is flagrant abuse of the well-known principles which guide courts who try criminal cases. His submission is that one Hukum Baitha was nominated as one of the five parches for the trial of the case by the Sarpanch, who was also cited and examined as a prosecution witness in the case. I have looked into the order of the Gram Cutcherry as also the deposition of the said Panch, namely, Hukum Baitha, and I find that the contention raised by learned counsel appears to be correct. 3. Two petitions were filed by the opposite party respectively on 18.6.1968 and 19.6.1968 substantially in respect of the same offence which were amalgamated and which was tried at the Gram Cutcherry as stated earlier in a single trial. Against their conviction and sentence, these petitioners moved the Sub-divisional Officer under Section 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act which application was rejected. 4. Mr. Brajkishore Prasad's grievance is that the point urged by him was taken before the learned Sub-divisional Officer and he has shown me the application which shows that such a point was taken; even then the Sub-divisional Officer has not dealt with this point. It has become necessary to mention these facts on the ground that Mr. Dasu Sinha for the opposite party has objected to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. His submission is that these petitioners ought to have preferred an appeal to the Full Bench of the Gram Cutcherry and not having done that, their application should not be entertained. At one time, learned counsel also urged that the point was not raised before the Sub-divisional Officer but when his attention was drawn to the application, he very properly did not press that point. 5. In my opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. At one time, learned counsel also urged that the point was not raised before the Sub-divisional Officer but when his attention was drawn to the application, he very properly did not press that point. 5. In my opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. It is inconceivable that the same person should be cited and examined as a witness and should also sit to decide the dispute, which was done in this case. On this ground alone the application must succeed. 6. Acting in the exercise of my authority under Article 227 of the Constitution, I set aside the order passed by the Gram Cutcherry in case nos. 12 of 1968 and 11 of 1968, dated 14.11.1968. I, accordingly, allow this application. Application allowed