PALAKDHARI SINGH & OTHERS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER on 19 January 1962

1). THE STATE OF UTl'AR PRADE.<::H A~'TI ANOTHER

(J.L. KAPUR and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)

/,imitation-Panchayati Adaiat-Fine i111po8fd on con· i>i<lion-RUO!ltry aftu expiry of .i:r: year1-IJ barred-U .P. l'amhayat Had Act, 19,7. (U.P; XXVI of 1947) 88. 54, 83, 94-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (XI.I of 1960) B. 70.

The appellant was convicted by the Panchayati Adalat for theft and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- in 1950. The conviction and sentence was confirm_ed in 1953 by the High Court in revision. In 1958 proceedings were taken to recover the fine. The appellant contended that the recovery was barred by s. 70 The Indian Penal Code. Th~ .rcspon· dent contended thats. 70 was not applicable to conv1ruons by Pauchayati Adalats and that the limitation started from the date of the order of the High Court.

2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Held, that 1. 70 Indian Penal Code was applicable to convictions by the Panchayati Adalats and that . the recovery of the fine after the expiry of six years from the date of con-viction was barred. There was no provision in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act prescribing any period of limitation or providing for the non-applicability of s. 70 of the Code tc sentences of fine imposed by the Panchayati Adalats. The limitation started from the date of the "passing of the sen-tence" and the. filing of appeal or revision did not, unless specifically ordered, arrest the operation of the- order impos-ing the sentence.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDIC'l'ION: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1960.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September, 7 11:159, of the Allaha-bad High Court in Crimin1tl Reference No. 470 of 1958.

K.P. Gupta, for the appellants.

G. 0 . .bfathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respon- dent No. 1, 1962, January 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J.-This appeal raises the question of the applicability of e. 70 of the Indian Penal Code to fines imposed in convictions for offences under the Indian Penal Code but tried by TribunJJ.ls called the Pancha.yati Adalats, now known as Nyaya Panchaya.ts.

The appellants were convicted by a Panchayati Adalat on February 5, 1950, for an offence under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75/, each. A revision against that order was taken to the High Court which was dis ~issed on May 13, 1953. In January 1958, procee-dmgs were tii.ken for the recovery of the fine imposed against the appellants by the Panchayati Adalat. In a revision against. that order an objection was raised that the fine was not recoverable as it was barred by s. 70 of the Indian 1~62 Patakdliari Singh. v. 'rh1 Sta!e of Ultar Pre<derh Kapur].

191;2

P•loidh4ti Singh v, Tn. St.,, of U ttar p, adtslt.

Kapur J.

Penal Code. Tho learned Sub·Divisional Magis· traw by his order da.too February 6, 19158, held the recovery of the fine to be barred under that section. But a revision was taken to the District Magistrate who recommended tbe setting aside of the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that thcro was no period of limitation. The High Court by its order dated' September 7, 1959 accepted the recommendation of the District Magistrate and held that there is no limit to the time within which the fines imposed by a Pancha.yati Ada.lat can be realised. It is against this order that the appellants havo brought this appeal by special leave.

The conviction of the appellants waa under s.379 of the Indian Penal Codo an<l if they had been tried and convicted by a Magistrate acting under tho Criminal Procedure Code, the recovery of tho fine would have been barred under s. 70, Indian Penal Code. But it is submitted that if tho con-viction is by a. Pancha.ya.ti Ada.lat, the ban on the recovery of the fine after the expiry of six years limitation is no longer applicable.

It is necC'ssa.ry to refer to tho relevant provi-sions of the lJ.P. Panchayat Haj Act (Act XXVI of HJ47), hereinafter called the 'Act', as applicable to tho facts of this case. Under s. 52 of the Act, cer-tain offeuces aro cognizable by the Panchayati A<lalat1 a.nd the offence under s. 3i9 of the Indian Penal Code is one of them. tiection 54 empowers those Panohayati Adalats to impose penalties and it is provided that they have no power to inflict substantive sentences of impriilonment or imprison· ment in default of payment of fine. Under s.b::I, pro-visions of the Indian .b.vidence Act, (.;ode of Criminal l'roccdure and the Limitation Act, are made inappli· cablo excepting to the extent that the Act makes them applicable. :Section 114 providoa for recovery of fine and it 1uns as follows :

'

'

[,"any fil)"Q. ·iinpnsed;! mr >oomp'ensation 1 [ortlllr~d ][to ][be, P\tici-in s. ][61 ][by ][a ][Kyaya ][Pan-][ r ],cha.yJl.t. .sharH·"·be.~irec'overable iin the manner t R\'PSIJribed.-.But if tho.Nyaya•J'ancliayat finds nXJ..Jl;\Ldifljpulty.tin,itsl recovc><ry; it may request thp Sub-DivisionaHMa!!i't.rA.M .within whose "~ jur~~diqt!Pq !Jr.,;; Jgya,y1t P;i,11c1J:3:Y?<t p()s .-to re-cillyet it ,11nii)l~,'~hall,re60,ver·jt 'as if t.11e B<\Il;, , Y"'~·JJ••' tcnce lf "of fino lrnd \icen p:isserl u ....... " 1 .1v py him.:• , -r·,.. -,, Rule 82 of the LJ.P. PancT1av:it Raj Rule:g"ue:ile:with th" limitation for writing r,ff of fines and juri·idiotion of the Panch&'y'A'ti A<lalats. It provides as· to how fines which arc not recoverable .can be writ.ten off, but th<'re is no pro,•ision in this rule as to the period of liIJl:~~a}iolfv J'Jn'ref<~r:c ;as f~rl u:s the Act is concerned. th.ere is 110 ,provision pr~scr·ibing a period of limit\iti{1n OJ', p1:o~!ding ,fqr thP. non-appli-eability of s. 70 of[1]th.o•[n-dl.ih F'enili Code to senkn-ce~,of. fine, passec;l • 1by'th1l PanP.ha;>aLi ·.Arlalats.:As a matter of facts. 9'1;jnf tho, Ant prQ\lides.that if there i~.diffin~).ty-iq ~h.ii rerov,cry of a fi1•s, ,the Sub-Divi-sri;m;i,l :l.J;i.gis.trntp ~h&lJ i:ecQ\'('l' it as.if it wns a dine impost'd" by ·himself, whic-h supporfs• .. t.he co1iten .. tion· oft.he 'n.ppollahts·ih'Lt''t!N pe1'iod· of ijmit11.tion as provided in s. 70 of the Indian I'e1:1al Cddc is'lltit 'made irm,pj)lfoaBlo fo·r<i1wi'ntionR" 1;,H Pancha-ya'ti'1~·a,iUHs. Tn. 1,eM~·~i'bi1)'i(;1/ll1e,D'.i~f{ict 'Magis,tra le aS.,~v~l:l a~;tqe,High 'co}i·t ifer9 in .orfor jn ho]ding. tl}(\i .tl1p tieriwl,of limit.atipn prn.\~ded b.y. .. s. 70, qf the: Indian.rllenal iCodo is inapplicahle to 1 the rec\h'er}'6f'finea 1<i1!f poll,{'rl hy' Pni1ehayliti ,Adalats. >t .. 1 irv~~:'ri!'\c.t,'¥g~~C! th.at the, fi11ai .oriki: )vhid,1 is the· teim·imw •& l q:uo' under s. :.;o,,.of th J Jmli·-in Po1}al • C Jcid>i.s t!;i;e orsrers "o'f the Hi;ill (:'oun i"''"'ed. in fo,\''i'sio.J'l':bn 'l'tfa:V'J;:f. lrj,95:1. anil 'fro".1 !l11•c dnte, t!i,t! :Pl:l:l§¢~Jl!ng'~ 1fdr t~\lo,Vetj' iire · ,vltiiiri' tirbt. ·:i::ut' 1 t li e.· ii 11i:rigµag~ [, ]}JJ!,i{!. '::,,' -'· ~0' • .prr.srp I 'b bs ,tn1~ \ te1wM•'lt,8. • ,..y,giig ~. ' l , to bEj the-date ¢."passing-or tbe f<en,tent:e" bytC!1u,rt, whichl'pa.3;res srr.::h''!itder"antl: thti''filiTfg<Iof' ~ippr~ 1"01'1' .11·1.-.J, .... '

Pal1lkdhari Singh

;-v. The Stqte o.f Uttar Prade~h .b."apm J.,

Pa/akdha-ri Sint.h v, The State of Uttar Pradesh Kapur J.

. Ji.nuo')' lfl.

Q54 SUPREME COUR't·REPORTS [1!56~) SUPP.

revision does not, unless specifically ordered, arrest the operation cif the order of passing of the sen-tence of conviction. In the present case the limi-tation started from the date of conviction by the Panchavati Adalat and not from 'the date of dismis-sa1 of i{evision by the High Court.

We.ther~fore allow this appeal, s·et aside the order ·of the High Court aJJ,d restore that of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated February u, 1958.

Appeal Allowed.

ONDER SINGH AND OTHERS

v.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB

(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)

Criminal 'I'rial~Acquittal of one acc1ued-No appeal against acquittal--Appeal to High Oaurt by other convicted accu~ed-Power of High Court-Whether can con8ider correctness of th' acquittal-Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act jj of 1898), s. 423. Four. persons S, G, L and R were tried for offences under s. ?.02 read with 34 ln.dian P<;_nal Code. The Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt to I) and acquitted him but ·he convicted the other three of the' offences charged and sentence them to death. No appeal was preferred against· the acquittal o( R. but the three convicted persons appealed ro the High Court .. •The High Court was of the view,that the se~sions Judge was wr0ng in giving the benefit of doub.t, to R, th::it R was present at the scene of offence and all the four accused had the common intention alleged by the prosecution, Relying upon the evidence of the eye witness it dismissed the appeal, but reduced the sentence of G.to life imprisonr:ient. The appellants conten~ed that the High Court ha.d .. 110 Juris-diction or authority to embark upoh an enquiry Into 'the propriety or validity of the acquittal of Rand that its.finding that R had ta.ken part in t~e offen~e .as . allege~\ b¥ the prosecution had introduced a serious 1nf!rm1ty in the Jµdgment of the High Court. 1