Order.- There can be no doubt whatever that the petitioner had acted in. a most insolent and improper manner by defying the authority of the Village Panchayat Court and using insulting words in its presence. The Panchayat Court thought that the petitioner was guilty of contempt of Court and misbehaviour and so fined him Rs. 5. Though the provision of law under which it purported to act is not mentioned in the Judgment, it would appear that it purported to act under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code which runs as under: “Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.” But under the Madras Village Courts Act (I of 1889), Panchayat Courts have only very limited powers in civil and criminal matters. Criminal jurisdiction is conferred by section 76 of the said Act which provides: “76. (1) The State Government may, by order notified in the District Gazette, empower a Panchayat Court to take cognizance of and try all or any of the following offences when committed within the local limits of its jurisdiction: (a) Offences punishable under sections 160, 277, 283, 290, 323, 334, 352, 358, 504 and 510 of the Indian Penal Code. (b) Offences punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of property not exceeding ten rupees in value, when the offender has not been previously convicted of theft. (c) Offences punishable under section 426 of the Indian Penal Code when the loss or damage caused thereby does not exceed ten rupees. (d) Offences punishable under section 3, clauses 9, 11 and 12 of the Towns Nuisances Act, 1889. (e) Any other specified offence under the Indian Penal Code or any special or local law which is punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months only or with both. Provided that in respect of offences mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) the State Government may extend the jurisdiction of a Panchayat Court to cases where the value of the property stolen or the loss or damage caused does not exceed twenty rupees. Provided that in respect of offences mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) the State Government may extend the jurisdiction of a Panchayat Court to cases where the value of the property stolen or the loss or damage caused does not exceed twenty rupees. Explanation.-The offence mentioned in this section include abetment of such offences. (2) If a Panchayat Court finds an accused person guilty of any of the above offences, it may impose on him (a) a fine not exceeding ten rupees in respect of an offence under section 510, Indian Penal Code, and (b) a fine not exceeding fifteen rupees in respect of any other offence: * * * * * (3) The Panchayat Court may allow a reasonable time for the ‘payment of the fine or may order that the fine shall be paid by instalments; but if the fine is not paid as directed, the Court shall recover it in the same manner as if it were due under a decree under this Act. If in any case it appears to the Court that the fine imposed cannot be recovered as aforesaid, it shall submit the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who may award such term of imprisonment as is authorised by law in case of such default; provided that the term so awarded shall in no case exceed one week”. It will be seen that a Panchayat Court can take cognizance of and try only such offences as are notified in the District Gazette by the State Government from among those which are enumerated in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section 76(1) of the Act. An offence falling under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code is not one of the offences mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 76. Clause (e) however lays down that any other specified offence under the Indian Penal Code or any special or local law which is punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months only or with both, would be triable by a Panchayat Court if the State Government by order notified in the District Gazette empowers the Panchayat Court in that behalf. No such notification has been issued by the State Government and consequently the Panchayat Court in the present case had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try an offence under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. It seems to me that this is a matter which requires the immediate attention of the State Government because Panchayat Courts will suffer in prestige and become the butt of ridicule if contempts committed in their presence cannot be punished by them. The only other course open to a Panchayat Court which is not empowered to try an offence under section 228, Indian Penal Code, is to report the matter to the High Court which may take action under the Contempt of Courts Act. But that is rather a round-about way of vindicating the dignity of the Court. So far as this case is concerned, the conviction of the petitioner has to be quashed for the simple reason that the Panchayat Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and punish the petitioner for an offence under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner. It does not, however, follow from this that the petitioner has not committed contempt of Court. He used highly insulting words to the Panchayat Court and had the matter been reported to the High Court, he would have been dealt with suitably. A.S.R. ----- Revision allowed.