# Patakdliari Singh v. 'rh1 Sta!e of

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 650
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-09-07
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDIC'l'ION: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1960
- **Bench:** J.L. Kapur, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/patakdliari-singh-v-rh1-sta-e-of-2333
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

/,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, 94lndian 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
631
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 conviction 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 sentence" and the. filing of appeal or revision did not, unless
specifically ordered, arrest the operation of the- order imposing 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 Allahabad High Court in Crimin1tl Reference No. 470 of
1958.
K.P. Gupta, for the appellants.
G. 0 . .bfathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent 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, 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
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.
652
SUPRE~iE COlRT REI'Ol1TS (lf62) SlJI>P.
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 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.
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 cogni

## Text

19' 2
74'C-isfton.rof
laeotN-to.x, Madror
••
S. I'. A n1idi
0/wtliar
Bi..h J.
€50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l9ti2) SUPP.
was not satisfied in the course of the assessment
proceeding that the firm had concealed its income.
The assessment order is dated November 10, 1951,
and there is an endorsement at the foot of the
assessment order by the Incomt.-tax Officer that
action under s. 28 had been taken for
concealment
of income indicating clearly that the Income-tax
Officer waa satiBfied in the course of the assessment
proceeding that the firm had conoealed its income.
In our view, the High Court was in error ·in
holding that penalty could not be imposed under
s. 28 (l) (c) upon the firm Messrs. S. V. Veerappan
Chettiar & Co.,.after its disaolution.
The appeals will therefore be allowed and
the orders pB.118Cd by thl" High Court will be set
a.aide and the petitions filed by the respondents dismissed with ooats in this Court and the High Court.
One hearing fee.
Appeals allowed.
PALAKDHARI SINGH & OTHEHS.
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, 94lndian 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
631
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 conviction 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 sentence" and the. filing of appeal or revision did not, unless
specifically ordered, arrest the operation of the- order imposing 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 Allahabad High Court in Crimin1tl Reference No. 470 of
1958.
K.P. Gupta, for the appellants.
G. 0 . .bfathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent 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, 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
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.
652
SUPRE~iE COlRT REI'Ol1TS (lf62) SlJI>P.
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 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.
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 :
f,
I
' /
f
I
I
•,#,)
2 S,.Q.It.
' S,UP1nw::moo1JR'IitREPORT8.
653
'
[,"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 recillyet it ,11nii)l~,'~hall,re60,ver·jt 'as if t.11e B<\Il;,
,
tcnce "of fino lrnd \icen p:isserl py him.:• , ,,
Y"'~·JJ••' lf
u .......
"
1 .1v
-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-applieability of s. 70 of1th.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. 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
li ii ,
'::,,'
~0' I
'b
\
•
~. '
l
t e.· 11i:rigμag~ }JJ!,i{!. -'· • .prr.srp bs
,tn1~ te1wM•'lt,8. ,..y,giig ,
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, ....
'
1902
Pal1lkdhari Singh
;-
v.
The Stqte o.f
Uttar Prade~h
.b."apm J.,
1962
Pa/akdha-ri Sint.h
v,
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
Kapur J.
1902
. 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 sentence of conviction.
In the present case the limitation started from the date of conviction by the
Panchavati Adalat and not from 'the date of dismissa1 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 Jurisdiction 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