Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1975 DIGILAW 459 (ALL)

MARKANDEY SINGH v. STATE

1975-09-12

H.N.KAPOOR

body1975
H. N. KAPOOR, J. This petition has been field by Markandey Singh under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying that the proceeding against him in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chunar in case no. 228 of 1973 be quashed. Proceedings had been started against him on the basis of an application made by Lallan singh, a newly elected Paradhan before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chunar at Mirzapur complaining that Markandey Singh being the old Pradhan had not handed over registers etc. of the Gram Sabha while handing over charge to Lallan Singh and as such committed an offence punishable under Section 14-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. This section was added by section 6 of the Amending Act III of 1973. ON that application the Sub-divisional Magistrate ordered the Station Officer concerned to register a case and investigate. After investigation, the Station Officer had submitted a charge sheet on the basis of which the sub-divisional Magistrate proceeded. 2. One of the grounds urged is that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the Station Officer to register the case and that it amounts to taking cognizance of the case under Section 190 (a) Cr. P. C. and that the entire proceedings are vitiated because even the statement of the complainant had not been recorded. In my opinion, cognizance of this case was not taken under Section 190 (a) but under Section 190 (b) Cr. P. C. The Sub-divisional Magistrate under his supervisory powers (apart from the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure) had ordered the Station Officer to register the case and investigate. The application sent to the Station Officer by the Sub-divisional Magistrate was treated to be a first information report. Inspite of this order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, it was open to the investigating officer to have submitted a final report after investigation. Cognizance of this case, therefore, had been ultimately taken under Section 190 (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also objected to the filing of the counter affidavit in this case by Lallan Singh and not by the Sub-divisional Magistrate himself who was made a party or by any person on behalf of the State. Lallan Singh had not been made a party to the petition. The Assistant Govt. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also objected to the filing of the counter affidavit in this case by Lallan Singh and not by the Sub-divisional Magistrate himself who was made a party or by any person on behalf of the State. Lallan Singh had not been made a party to the petition. The Assistant Govt. Advocate has made a statement that he adopts the counter affidavit on behalf of the State. In fact, it was at the instance of Lallan Singh that the proceedings started. He was thus a person interested. I see no reason why he had no right to file the counter affidavit. Most of the facts alleged in the affidavit are, in fact, within the personal knowledge of Lallan Singh and none else. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Section 52 (f) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act any offence under the Act of the rules framed thereunder is to be tried by the Nyaya Panchayat and as such the offence under Section 14-A of the Act too should have been tried by the Nyaya Panchayat. According to him, it was a different matter that the Nyaya Panchayat itself might have ultimately transferred the case to the court of the competent jurisdiction under Section 58 in case it felt that adequate punishment could not be awarded. 5. On the other hand, the Asstt. Govt. Advocate has placed reliance on section 55 (4) Panchayat Raj Act which is as follows : "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 sections 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. " This section was interpreted by a division Bench of this court in the case of Bachchey Ram Ram v. S. D. M. Palli Ranikhet, (1972 AWR 34.) and it was held that once a case is pending in the court of the Magistrate, the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Mata Bhikh v. Bai jnath. In that case it was no doubt held that Nyaya Panchayat only had jurisdiction to try the case. But it is to be noted that it was after the decision in that case that Section 55 had been substituted for the old section by Act No. II of 1955 which was enforced by the notification dated April 27, 1956. The fact remains that the Magistrate has now taken cognizance of the case and it is pending in his court. The Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of any offence against other laws under Schedule 2 of the old Criminal Procedure Code which is applicable to the fact of the present case as the investigation has started prior to the coming into force of the New Cr. P. C. vide AIR 1975 SC 1465 . 6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the trial of the petitioner before the Magistrate under section 14-A Panchayat Raj Act is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. this Court has only to pass an order to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of the justice. There is another provision under Section 395 Cr. P. C. (New) for making a reference to the High Court in case any Act, Ordinance, regulation or provision is sought to be challenged. Vires of the Act or a particular section may be challenged even in the writ jurisdiction. Prima facie, there does not appear to be any such illegality in the trial which may justify interference under Section 482 Cr. P. C. I have also not examined the effect of Art. 14 of the Constitution having been suspended by the promulgation of the Presidential Order under Art. 359 of the Constitution. 7. Prima facie, there does not appear to be any such illegality in the trial which may justify interference under Section 482 Cr. P. C. I have also not examined the effect of Art. 14 of the Constitution having been suspended by the promulgation of the Presidential Order under Art. 359 of the Constitution. 7. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The stay order is vacated. .