Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 50 (HP)

Jagat Ram v. Prem Lal

2014-01-08

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J (oral) Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Camp at Karsog, in Cr.Appeal No.45/12, titled as Jagat Ram Versus Prem Lal. For proper construction of provisions of the statute, relevant for appreciation of the point involved, it would be beneficial to reproduce the order in toto:- “Since, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are acted as “Dharmasan” of Gram Panchayat, Tattapani and decided the compliant of the appellant. Hence, they cannot be arrayed as respondents. As per Section 67 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the matter is decided by the Gram Panchayat, the appeal lies to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P of the concerned area. Section 67 of the Panchayati Raj Act is reproduced as under:- “Any person aggrieved by an order or decree of a Bench of the Gram Panchayat may appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of such order or decree to the Judicial Magistrate/Sub-Judge in respect of any case or suit, as the case may be, and the Collector concerned in respect of any proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953.” Hence, this appeal is ordered to be sent to the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. alongwith copy of this order, to decide it in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in person before the above noted court on 2-8-2013 at 10 A.M. sharp. The papers of this Court after due completion be consigned to the record room.” 2. Evidently the Court below, has directed the appeal to be listed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi. However, while doing so, he also concluded the issue of impleadment of original respondents No.2 to 4, who acted as “Dharmasan” (Bench) of the Gram Panchayat. They were impleaded as party respondents only for the reason that they decided the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by the appellant. 3. While contending that the Court below, had no authority/jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior counsel, has invited my attention to the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as Cr.PC). 4. Section 60 of the Panchayati Raj Act, reads as under:- “60. While contending that the Court below, had no authority/jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior counsel, has invited my attention to the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as Cr.PC). 4. Section 60 of the Panchayati Raj Act, reads as under:- “60. Procedure and power to ascertain truth.- (1) The Gram Panchayat shall receive such evidence in a case, suit or proceeding, as the parties may adduce and may call for such further evidence as, in their opinion, may be necessary for the determination of the points in issue. (2) The Gram Panchayat may make local investigation in the village to which the dispute relates. (3) It would be the duty of the Gram Panchayat to ascertain the facts of every case, suit or proceeding before it by every lawful means, in its power and thereafter to make such decree, or order, with or without costs as it may deem just and legal. (4) The Gram Panchayat shall follow the procedure prescribed by or under this Act. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The code of criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Limitation Act, 1963, shall not apply to any suit, case or proceedings before a Gram Panchayat except as provided in this Act or as may be prescribed.” “67. Appeal.-Any person aggrieved by an order or decree of a Bench of the Gram Panchayat may appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of such order or decree to the Judicial Magistrate/Sub-Judge in respect of any case or suit, as the case may be, and the Collector concerned in respect of any proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Land revenue Act, 1953.” 5. Language of the provisions is unambiguously clear. Reading of Section 67 of the Act absolutely provides that an appeal, arising out of a decision rendered by the Bench of Gram Panchayat, would lie only the Judicial Magistrate/Sub-Judge. Appeal is a statutory right and only the designated authority can hear the same. 6. Petitioner had filed a complaint before Gram Panchayat, Tatapani against respondent Prem Lal. Dismissing the same, vide order dated 08.08.2012, respondent Prem Lal was acquitted. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374(3) of Cr.PC, before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Appeal is a statutory right and only the designated authority can hear the same. 6. Petitioner had filed a complaint before Gram Panchayat, Tatapani against respondent Prem Lal. Dismissing the same, vide order dated 08.08.2012, respondent Prem Lal was acquitted. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374(3) of Cr.PC, before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Appeal itself, under the said statute was misconceived in law. Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. would lie only against an order/judgment of conviction. With respect to proceedings under the Act, an appeal would lie only before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. Except otherwise provided, there is a specific bar with regard to applicability of the provisions of Cr.PC. As such, the Sessions Judge, in the impugned order could not have passed any order, directing the appeal to be listed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. The procedure adopted by him was absolutely irregular. He could have only returned the appeal leaving it open to the appellant to file the same before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with law. He could not have decided the issue of impleadment of the Member of the Bench, who passed the order. 7. Whether such persons can be impleaded as party respondents in an appeal or not, is an issue, which is being left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the event of petitioner choosing to file an appeal, impleadment of such members is a question which shall also be considered by the appellate Authority/Court. 8. As such, impugned order dated 12.07.2013 is quashed and set aside. Appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner is directed to be returned, leaving it open for him to file the same, if so desired, before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with law. As and when the same is filed, the authority shall consider the same, on its own merit, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.