JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The Appellant and four others were prosecuted for offences Under Sections 395, 379 and 447, IPC, before the SDM, Ranikhet, for an incident which occurred on 3rd September 1958. On 25th January 1960 the learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons on the finding that there was no prima facie case against them. It was held that the evidence on record was not sufficient to show that the disputed land was in possession of the complainant or that the accused persons had committed dacoity in respect of the crop standing on that land. 2. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat for offences Under Sections 379 and 447, IPC only. On 3rd March, 1963 the Nyaya Panchayat held the accused guilty and passed a sentence of fine. The accused filed a revision which was, however, dismissed. Thereupon the Appellant instituted a writ petition in this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the same. Hence the present special appeal. 3. It was urged by Mr. Pant, appearing for the Appellant, that in view of the proceedings before the SDM, the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. 4. Section 52 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides inter alia that offences Under Sections 379 and 447 IPC were cognizable by Nyaya Panchayat alone. An offence u/s 395, however, is not cognizable by the Nyaya Panchayat. The proceedings u/s 395 IPC before the SDM were valid. Section 55 of the Panchayat Raj Act provides for cognizance of criminal cases. Sub-section (4) says: Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 52 and Sub-sections (1) to (3) of this section but subject always to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, where any court has taken cognizance of any offence referred to in the said section and a summons or warrant, as the case may be, has issued for the appearance of the accused in such case, the offence may be enquired into and tried by such court. Thus the SDM could have taken cognizance of the offences Under Sections 379 and 497, IPC and could have enquired into the same. 5. Thus the SDM could have taken cognizance of the offences Under Sections 379 and 497, IPC and could have enquired into the same. 5. In the context of Sections 52 and 55(4), Section 73(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act provides: Where a criminal case is pending in any court against an accused in respect of any offence or where an accused has been tried for any offence, no Nyaya Panchayat shall take cognizance of any such offence or on the same facts, of any other offence of which the accused might have been charged or convicted. 6. Clearly a criminal case was once pending against the Appellant in the court of the SDM. So for the same offence or for any other offence on the same facts, the Nyaya Panchayat could not take cognizance against the Appellant. On facts it is clear that the SDM took cognizance of the complaint against the Appellant for an incident which occurred on 3rd September 1958. In respect of the same incident the Nyaya Panchayat has also taken cognizance at the instance of the complainant. Thus the Nyaya Panchayat took cognizance of an offence on the same facts upon which a criminal case was earlier pending against the accused in a criminal court. 7. It is true that Section 73(2) refers to a criminal case being pending in a court, but this read with Sub-section (4) of Section 55 of the Panchayat Raj Act would mean that when such a criminal case is pending, it shall be enquired into and tried by such court. Reading all these provisions together, it is apparent that in respect of such cases which once become pending in and are enquired into by a criminal court, the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat to take cognizance thereof is excluded. 8. In this view it is clear that the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in relation to the incident which happened on 3rd September 1958. The Appellant's conviction and sentence were void. 9. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the conviction and sentence passed upon the Appellant by the Nyaya Panchayat's order dated 3rd March 1963 are quashed. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the Appellant.