JUDGEMENT P. K. Sarin, J 1. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.91 passed by 12th. Additional Sessions Judge, Patna dismissing petitioners Criminal Appeal No.127/90 affirming the judgment and order passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st. Class, Patna City on 17.7.90 in Complaint 119/88 Case No. T. K. 400/90. The trial court convicted the petitioners under section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered them to be released on Probation on their executing bonds of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace for a period of one year. 2. Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution case in brief, was that on 27.5.1988 the complainant along with his wife Ramkali Devi returned to his village house from Patna at 6 P.M. by train and as noon as they reached their house the petitioners along with five others forming unlawful assembly came at the door of the complainant and the petitioner no.1 and another co-accused abused the complainant and asked the remaining accused to assault the complainant whereupon the present petitioners abused the complainant and also began to hurled brick bat. The brick bat hurled by petitioner Vijay Yadav hit the left side lower portion of lip of the complainant's wife causing bleeding injuries. The complainant's wife also received brick bat on her left and right side back and the chest. The brick bat hurled by petitioner no.1 Nathu Yadav was said to have hit on her right side wrist and right side thigh. The brick bat hurled by remaining accused hit the complainant's grandman Munna on his chest, back and head. On alam having been raised witnesses reached there and saved the complainant and the other members of his house. The complainant riled complaint as the police did not take any action. 3. The defence was of false implication in the case. 4. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The learned trial court on appraisal of evidence found the charges against the accused persons including the petitioners to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellate court on reappraisal of evidence concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 5. 4. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The learned trial court on appraisal of evidence found the charges against the accused persons including the petitioners to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellate court on reappraisal of evidence concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the trial of the petitioners by the court of Judicial Magistrate was without jurisdiction as the case was triable by Gram Cutchery in view of section 62 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), 1947. It is contended that section 68 of the Act bars any court to take cognisance of cages which is cognisable under the Act by a bench of the Gram Cutchery unless an order to the contrary has been passed by the sub-divisional Magistrate or the Munsif concerned under the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the cognisance of the case against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction and the trial based on such cognisance is also without Jurisdiction. 6. Section 61 of the Act lays down that the Gram Cutchery shall have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the Criminal Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Bench is situate for the trial of the offence indicated in section 62 itself. The offence punishable under section 147 and J23 of the Indian Penal Code are also included in those offences. The petitioners were tried for the offences punishable under section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were summoned to lace trial under those sections. In view of provisions of section 62 of the Act the offences under sections 147 323 of the Indian Penal Court were cognisable by Gram Cutchery. 7. Section 68 of the Act lays down that no court shall take cognisance of any case -or suit which is cognisable under the Act by bench of the Gram Cutchery unles an order to the contrary has been passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate or the Munsif concerned under the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. The Magistrate should not have taken cognizance under an order to the contrary would have been passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate or Munsif concerned as contemplates under section 68 of the Act. If such an order is not passed the bar of taking cognizance by any court including that of Magistrate remained there and the learned Magistrate who took cognizance should not have taken cognizance in view of the bar under 68 of the Act. Thus, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction and is against the statutory provision contained in section 68 of the Act. Trial based on such cognizance would be without jurisdiction and bad in law section 62, 68 and 69 of the Act were considered by a it Division Bench of the Court in the case of Bimal Sing Vs. State of Bihar (1965 BLJR 661) wherein it has been held that the courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure has been prohibited by the statute from taking cognizance of any case which is cognizable and triable under the Act by a bench of Gram Cutchery unless an order to the contrary has been passed by the concerned court. It has been held that if no contrary order has been passed as contemplated by action 68 of the Act the cognizance by the Magistrate in respect of offence which was triable by Gram Cutchery would be without jurisdiction and the trial based on such cognizance would also be vitiated. The court set aside the conviction of the accused in the said case on account of such infirmity. 8. In view of the decision of this court in the said case and also in view the express provisions as contained ill section 68 of the Act the cognizance in this case taken by the learned Magistrate without passing any order to the contrary as contemplated by section 68 of the Act is without jurisdiction and the trial held on the basis of such cognizance must be held to be without jurisdiction. The entire trial is vitiated on account of such infirmity. Consequently the judgment and order of the trial court as well as of the appellate court regarding conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of above discussion the criminal revision application succeeds. The entire trial is vitiated on account of such infirmity. Consequently the judgment and order of the trial court as well as of the appellate court regarding conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of above discussion the criminal revision application succeeds. The impugned order of conviction passed by courts below are hereby set side.