Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1520 (PNJ)

Dalbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-04-27

SHAM SUNDER

body2010
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 04.11.06, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicjal Magistrate, Dasuya a, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioners), for the offences, punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, and, sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, and, the judgment dated 10.07.09 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. A written complaint, was moved, before the Police, by the Range Officer, Dasuya, to the effect, that the Forest Department, had 36 acres 3 kanals and 19 marlas of land, at village Bagrowal, in H.B. No. 459. It was stated that, on 10 hectares, out of the total land, plantation had been done, by the Forest Department, in the year 1998-99, whereas, earth work, was done, on 5 hectares thereof, for plantation, in the year 2001-02. It was further stated that, on 10.10.01, at about 10.00 A.M., it was informed, by Narinder Singh, Forest Guard, Incharge, Bagrowal Beat, that Mukhtiar Singh, accompanied by Dalbir Singh, Surat Singh and Darshan Singh, was tilling the aforesaid land. Thereafter, Manjit Singh, Range Officer, Dasuya, Mahavir Singh, Deputy DFO, PFS-II, Ajit Ram, and, Narinder Singh, Forest Guards, went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused, tilling the land, with the help of tractor. The aforesaid officials, tried to stop the accused, from doing so, but they were threatened to be killed. It was further stated that five-six other persons, were also accompanying the accused, at the relevant time. On the basis of the complaint, the first information report, was registered, against the accused. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challanged. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused, were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. Charge under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them to which, they pleaded not guilty, claimed judicial trial. 5. After the completion of investigation, they were challanged. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused, were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. Charge under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them to which, they pleaded not guilty, claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Jorawar Singh, Halqa Patwari (PW1), Narinder Singh, Forest Guard (PW2), Jeet Ram, Forest Guard (PW3), Yogesh Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4), Investigating Officer, Bhupinder Singh, Head Constable (PW5), Raj Inder Singh, Additional Station House Officer (PW6), Mahavir Singh, District Forest Officer (PW7), and, Sukhdev Singh, Superintendent, Office of the District Forest Officer (PW8). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. 6. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. It was stated by them that the land, belonged to the Central Government, and they were cultivating the same. It was further stated by them, that a false case, had been registered against them, at the instance of Forest Department officials. Thereafter, they closed their defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused,, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the appellants (now revision-petitioners) which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment dated 10.07.09. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition has been filed by the revision-petitioners. 10. I have" heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that, the Court of Sub Divisional. Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, had no jurisdiction, to try the offences, punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. He further submitted that only the Gram Panchayat, could take cognizance of the offences. He further submitted that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, was required to transfer the case to the Gram Panchayat, but instead it tried the same and illegally convicted and sentenced the accused (now revision-petitioners), vide judgment dated 04.11.06. He further submitted that even the Appellate Court acted illegally in dismissing the appeal. He further submitted that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, was required to transfer the case to the Gram Panchayat, but instead it tried the same and illegally convicted and sentenced the accused (now revision-petitioners), vide judgment dated 04.11.06. He further submitted that even the Appellate Court acted illegally in dismissing the appeal. He also placed reliance, on Hari Singh v. State and another, 1973, CLR, 650, and Gurmail Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 163:2006(2) RCR (Criminal), 215, in support of his contention. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, had jurisdiction, to take cognizance of the offences, punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, and try the case. He further submitted that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, was not required, to transfer the proceedings, to the Gram Panchayat. He further submitted that the judgments of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, being legal and valid are liable to be upheld. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The provisions of Section 44 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be. called as the Act only), read as under : "Powers and jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat over criminal offences - (1)Gram Panchayat shall exercise powers and shall have jurisdiction over matters laid down in Schedule II. (2) For the purpose of deciding whether an offence falls within the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat, the provisions of Sections 178 to 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply. (3) A Gram Panchayat shall be deemed to be Criminal Court when trying criminal cases." 14. The plain reading of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, clearly goes to show, that the Gram Panchayat, shall have jurisdiction over matters, laid down, in Schedule II. It is further evident, from the afore-extracted provision, that the Gram Panchayat, shall be deemed to be Criminal Court, while trying criminal cases. According to Schedule II, the offences, punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, are cognizable, by the Gram Panchayat. It is further evident, from the afore-extracted provision, that the Gram Panchayat, shall be deemed to be Criminal Court, while trying criminal cases. According to Schedule II, the offences, punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, are cognizable, by the Gram Panchayat. Since both these offences, as per Schedule II, were cognizable, by the Gram Panchayat, it had the jurisdiction, to try the same as a Criminal Court, according to Section 44 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act, clearly reveals, that any Magistrate, before whom, a complaint or report, by the Police of any offence, triable by a Gram Panchayat, is brought, or who takes cognizance of any such offence, upon his own knowledge or suspicion shall transfer the proceedings, to a Gram Panchayat of competent jurisdiction. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Hari Singhs. v. Gurmail Singhs cases (supra), decided by this Court. Since the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, had no jurisdiction, to take cognizance and try the accused, the judgment dated 04.11.06, recording conviction and awarding sentence is a nullity. Similarly the judgment dated 10.07.09, rendered by the Appellate Court, is a nullity. The same are liable to be set aside. The revision-petition, thus, deserves to be accepted. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The judgments dated 04.11.06 and 10.07.09, are set aside. 16. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, is directed to transfer the proceedings, relating to FIR No. 135 dated 10.10.01, P.S. Dasuya, to the concerned Gram Panchayat, for trial, in accordance with the provisions of law.