Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No. 270/79 by Shri Jiwan Tigga, 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa through which the order passed by Shri M. Kindo, S.D.J.M., Seraikella dated 22.11.1979 in G.R. No. 979.74 was duly confirmed and maintained. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that it has been alleged by the informant, Shyam Narayan P. Verma that on 29.12.1974 at about 4.45 P.M. he had gone to market and had been 50-60 persons being led by Ram Balak Singh, one of the petitioner and Ram Balak Singh assaulted the informant by lathi and Dhananjoy Majhi also assaulted by lathi and other accused persons pelted stones so the informant sustained injury and had gone be hospital where he found Joy Kumar Mishra and Madan Lai also in injured condition. So on that very day F.I.R,. was lodged and the police submitted chargesheet under Section 147/323/337 of the I.P.C. and under Rule 39 (2) of D.I.R., The G.R. Case No. 979/74 was tried by S.D.J.M. who vide his judgment dated 22.11.1997 found these four petitioners and two others guilty under Secs. 147/323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to undergo R.I. for one month under Sec. 147 of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 in default R.I. for three months under Sec. 323 of the I.P.C. and other eight accused persons who were facing trial were acquitted and the petitioner were acquitted under Defence of India Rules and also under Sec. 337 of the I.P.C. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction only six convicts preferred the appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 270/79 and that was dismissed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa and conviction and sentence as maintained. Against the order of 2nd Add. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa only these four petitioners preferred revision. 3. Though various grounds were taken in the revision application challenging the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge but at the time of hearing learned Counsel for that petitioners submitted that admittedly the trial court and also the appellate court simply found the petitioners guilty under Secs. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa only these four petitioners preferred revision. 3. Though various grounds were taken in the revision application challenging the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge but at the time of hearing learned Counsel for that petitioners submitted that admittedly the trial court and also the appellate court simply found the petitioners guilty under Secs. 323 and 147 of the I.P.C. and all these offences are exclusively triable by the Gram Panchayat Kutchery and under Sec. 69 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act the cognizance court should have transferred the case to the Gram panchayat Kutchery or at least cancelled the jurisdiction then the regular court is competent to try the offence. In the instant case the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat Kutchery has not been cancelled. In that view of the matter, the entire cognizance and trial is vitiated. 4. This plea was taken by the petitioners before the appellate court but it was answered in negative. The appellate court was perfectly justified in recording a finding that in the instant case the chargesheet was filed not only under Sec. 147 and 323 of the I.P.C. but also under Sec. 337 of the I.P.C. and D.I. Rule and though the trial court acquitted the accused persons under Section 337 of the I.P.C. and D.I. Rules but the cognizance was taken under those counts also and these offences are not triable by Gram Panchayat Kutchery. I am fully in agreement with the finding of the court below because when the cognizance was taken prima facie , cognizance taking court found that allegation under Section 337 of the I.P.C. or D.I. Rules is made out and these offences are not triable by Gram Panchayat Kutchery. So cognizance is not bad in law. It is quite possible that after evidence the accused persons were acquitted under these counts but that itself is not a ground to challenge the entire cognizance. Further more practically there is nothing on the record to show that at the time of occurrence a regularly constituted Gram Panchayat Kutchery was functioning at the concerned place. In such a situation if at all there is no evidence about the existence of Gram Panchayat Kutchery then certainly cognizance taking court is not in a position to remit the case to the concerned Gram Panchayat Kutchery. In such a situation if at all there is no evidence about the existence of Gram Panchayat Kutchery then certainly cognizance taking court is not in a position to remit the case to the concerned Gram Panchayat Kutchery. So there is no merit in this contention that cognizance is bad in law. 5. No other point was raised at the time of hearing and both the courts below concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioners are guilty under Section 147/323 of the I.P.C. and it does not require any interference. 6. In the result this revision is dismissed and the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court i.e. Shri M.Kindo, S.D.J.M., Saraikella in G.R. No. 979/74 and that of the appellate court in Cr. Appeal No, 270/79 is hereby confirmed and maintained.