PALAKDHARI SINGH & OTHERS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

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.

p. 651

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, proceedmgs 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 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.

pp. 651–652

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 conviction is by a. Pancha.ya.ti Ada.lat, the ban on the recovery of the fine after the expiry of six years limitation is no longer applicable.

p. 652

It is necC'ssa.ry to refer to tho relevant provisions 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, certain 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, provisions 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 : 2 S,.Q.It. ' S,UP1nw::moo1JR'IitREPORT8. 653

pp. 652–653

[,"any ·iinpnsed;! mr >oomp'ensation ortlllr~d to be, P\tici-in s. 61 by a Kyaya Pan- ,cha.yJl.t. .sharH·"·be.~irec'overable iin the manner R\'PSIJribed.-.But if tho.Nyaya•J'ancliayat finds nXJ..Jl;\Ldifljpulty.tin,itsl recovc><ry; it may request

p. 653

thp Sub-DivisionaHMa!!i't.rA.M .within whose "~ jur~~diqt!Pq !Jr.,;; Jgya,y1t P;i,11c1J:3:Y?<t p()s .-to recillyet it ,11nii)l~,'~hall,re60,ver·jt 'as if t.11e B<\Il;,

p. 653, margin F

tcnce "of fino lrnd \icen p:isserl py him.:• , ,, Y"'~·JJ••' .1v 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 the Act is concerned. th.ere is ,provision pr~scr·ibing a period of limit\iti{1n OJ', p1:o~!ding ,fqr thP. non-applieability of s. 70 of th.o•[n-dl.ih F'enili Code to senknce~,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-Divisri;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 Panchaya'ti'1~·a,iUHs. Tn. ,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 the rec\h'er}'6f'finea poll,{'rl hy' Pni1ehayliti ,Adalats.

p. 653, margin F

1 irv~~:'ri!'\c.t,'¥g~~C! th.at the, fi11ai .oriki: )vhid,1 is the· teim·imw •& q:uo' under s. :.;o,,.of th 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'~ fdr t~\lo,Vetj' iire · ,vltiiiri' tirbt. ·:i::ut'

p. 653, margin F

, '::,,' ~0' 'b \ • ~. ' t li e.· 11i:rigµag~ .prr.srp ,tn1~ ,..y,giig

p. 653, margin F

ii 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~ Q54 SUPREME COUR't·REPORTS [1!56~) SUPP. revision does not, unless specifically ordered, arrest the operation cif the order of passing of the tence of conviction. In the present case the tation started from the date of conviction by Panchavati Adalat and not from 'the date of dismissa1 of i{evision by the High Court.

pp. 653–654, margin F

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

p. 654

Appeal Allowed. ONDER SINGH AND OTHERS

p. 654

v.

p. 654

THE STATE OF PUNJAB (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA

p. 654

RAGHUBAR JJ.)

p. 654

Criminal 'I'rial~Acquittal of one acc1ued-No appeal against acquittal--Appeal High Oaurt other convicted accu~ed-Power of th' acquittal-Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act 1898), 423.

p. 654

The

p. 654

of I) but

p. 654

.. of se~sions The conten~ed that of the Rand that

p. 654

part t~e offen~e allege~\ of

p. 654