# ~ Shivnandan S!iafrrid v. Ti,, Punjqb National Bahk l.Jd

- **Citation:** [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1444
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1953-10-27
- **Bench:** VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAs, Sinha Jj
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shivnandan-s-iafrrid-v-ti-punjqb-national-bahk-l-jd-350
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U. P. Act XXVI of 1947), ss.
49 (1)(2)(4), 52, 55-Rule 84 framed by Stat< Government-Thef' of
the value of Rs. J..().0_ committed by three accused-One of the accused
belonging to Madhya Pradesh State-Panchayat Ada/at constituted
under the provisions of s. 49 of the Act and Rule 84 framed there·
under to try the present case-Whether could be properly constituted
-Rule 84-W hether Intra vires-/urisdiction of ordinary courtsJJ/hether excluded-Bar under s. 55---Scope of.
Three accused were c.onvicted by a Magistrate under s. 379 of
the Indian Penal Code of the offence of theft of the value of
Rs. 3 and sentenced to a fine 0£ . Rs. 25 /- each. The question for
determination was
whether t~e case should have been tried
by a
Panchayat Ada:lat cortstituted under the U. P. PanchaYat Raj Act,
1947 and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try it. Two of the
accused belonged to U.P. State and the third belonged to Madhya
Pradesh State.
Section 52( I) of the Act provides that certain specified offences
(including the offence of theft when the value of stolen property does
-
.~·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1445
not exceed Rs. 50 /') shall be cognizable by a Panchayat Adalat.
Section 55 provides that no court shall take cognizance of any
case which is cognizable under the Act by the Panchayat Adalat.
Section 49 provides:
"49(1) The Sarpanch shall, for the trial of every case, form a
bench of five Panches from the panel referred to in s. 43.
(2) Every such bench shall include one Panch who resides in
the area of the Gaon Sabha in which the complainant of a case
resides and likewise one Panch in the area in which the accused
resides and three Panches residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha
in which neither party resides, provided that in police cases one
Panch shall be such as may be residing in the Gaon Sabha in
which the offence was committed, one Panch residing in the area
of Gaon Sabha in which the accused resides and three Panches
residing in the areas other than those mentioned above".
Rule 84 framed by the State Government under s. 49(4) of the
Act reads as follows :-
"For the purposes of trial or decision of any case or proceeding
parties of which are residents of different circles or different districts
or any one of the parties iJ a resident of a place not governed by the
Act, the prescribed authority having jurisdiction over the Panchayati
Adalat in which a case or proceeding is instituted or transferred for
disposal shall constitute a special bench consisting of Panches of the
said Panchayati Adalat and if convenient and possible may include
a Panch of the other circle and shall appoint one of them as Chairman of the bench unless the Sarpanch is a member of it".
Held that inasmuch as in the present case one out of the
accused belonged to Madhya Pradesh it was not possible to constitute a bench in strict compliance with s. 49(2) of the Act to try his
case. Section 84 in so far as it relates to the constitution of a special
bench where one of the parties belongs to a place outside the State
Qf U. P. is ultra vires.
Hence no competent bench could be constituted under s. 49. of the Act for the trial of the pres~nt case in which
there were three accused one of whom was a person belonging to a
different State.
Under the circumstances the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts
was not excluded.
Exclusion of jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction, can
be brought about by the setting up of a court of limited jurisdiction,
in respect of the limited field, only if the vesting and the exercise of
that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative.
The bar under s. 55 of the Act relates to the case as a whole
arid has reference to the entire proceeding in respect of all the
accused together.
CruMtNAL
APPELLATE
JuRISDIGTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 22 of 1954.
1955
Bhim Sen
.
v.
The State of U. P.
"955
Bhim.Sen
"·
The State of U. P;
1446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS·
[19551
Appeal under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constiru

## Text

1955
~
Shivnandan
S!iafrrid
v.
Ti,, Punjqb
National Bahk l.Jd.
Sinha J.
1955
March 15
1444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1955f
As indicated above, in the present case the direction and control of the appellant and of the ministerial staif in charge of the Cash Department of the
Bank was entirely vested in the Bank through its
manager or other superior officer. We have therefore
no hesitation in differing from the conclusion arrived
at by the Appellate Tribunal and in holding that the
appellant was an employee of the Bank. That being
so, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to make the
directions
it did in respect of
the
appellant. The
respondent did not at any stage of the proceedings
challenge· the orders of the Tribunal on its merits.
That conclusion being reached, there is no difficulty
in upholding the orders of the Tribunal in respect of
the appellant,
It is therefore not necessary
to pronounce upon the other points raised by the parties.
The
appeal
1s
accordingly
allowed
with
costs
throughout.
BHIM SEN
ti.
Appeal allowed.
THE STATE OF U.P.
[VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAs and SINHA JJ. J
U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U. P. Act XXVI of 1947), ss.
49 (1)(2)(4), 52, 55-Rule 84 framed by Stat< Government-Thef' of
the value of Rs. J..().0_ committed by three accused-One of the accused
belonging to Madhya Pradesh State-Panchayat Ada/at constituted
under the provisions of s. 49 of the Act and Rule 84 framed there·
under to try the present case-Whether could be properly constituted
-Rule 84-W hether Intra vires-/urisdiction of ordinary courtsJJ/hether excluded-Bar under s. 55---Scope of.
Three accused were c.onvicted by a Magistrate under s. 379 of
the Indian Penal Code of the offence of theft of the value of
Rs. 3 and sentenced to a fine 0£ . Rs. 25 /- each. The question for
determination was
whether t~e case should have been tried
by a
Panchayat Ada:lat cortstituted under the U. P. PanchaYat Raj Act,
1947 and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try it. Two of the
accused belonged to U.P. State and the third belonged to Madhya
Pradesh State.
Section 52( I) of the Act provides that certain specified offences
(including the offence of theft when the value of stolen property does
-
.~·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1445
not exceed Rs. 50 /') shall be cognizable by a Panchayat Adalat.
Section 55 provides that no court shall take cognizance of any
case which is cognizable under the Act by the Panchayat Adalat.
Section 49 provides:
"49(1) The Sarpanch shall, for the trial of every case, form a
bench of five Panches from the panel referred to in s. 43.
(2) Every such bench shall include one Panch who resides in
the area of the Gaon Sabha in which the complainant of a case
resides and likewise one Panch in the area in which the accused
resides and three Panches residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha
in which neither party resides, provided that in police cases one
Panch shall be such as may be residing in the Gaon Sabha in
which the offence was committed, one Panch residing in the area
of Gaon Sabha in which the accused resides and three Panches
residing in the areas other than those mentioned above".
Rule 84 framed by the State Government under s. 49(4) of the
Act reads as follows :-
"For the purposes of trial or decision of any case or proceeding
parties of which are residents of different circles or different districts
or any one of the parties iJ a resident of a place not governed by the
Act, the prescribed authority having jurisdiction over the Panchayati
Adalat in which a case or proceeding is instituted or transferred for
disposal shall constitute a special bench consisting of Panches of the
said Panchayati Adalat and if convenient and possible may include
a Panch of the other circle and shall appoint one of them as Chairman of the bench unless the Sarpanch is a member of it".
Held that inasmuch as in the present case one out of the
accused belonged to Madhya Pradesh it was not possible to constitute a bench in strict compliance with s. 49(2) of the Act to try his
case. Section 84 in so far as it relates to the constitution of a special
bench where one of the parties belongs to a place outside the State
Qf U. P. is ultra vires.
Hence no competent bench could be constituted under s. 49. of the Act for the trial of the pres~nt case in which
there were three accused one of whom was a person belonging to a
different State.
Under the circumstances the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts
was not excluded.
Exclusion of jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction, can
be brought about by the setting up of a court of limited jurisdiction,
in respect of the limited field, only if the vesting and the exercise of
that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative.
The bar under s. 55 of the Act relates to the case as a whole
arid has reference to the entire proceeding in respect of all the
accused together.
CruMtNAL
APPELLATE
JuRISDIGTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 22 of 1954.
1955
Bhim Sen
.
v.
The State of U. P.
"955
Bhim.Sen
"·
The State of U. P;
1446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS·
[19551
Appeal under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constiruc
tion from · the Judgment and - Order -dated the. .-27th
October 1953 · of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Reference No. 121 of 1953.
-
_
_
K. P. Gupta.and A.D. Mathur,' for the appellant.
-K. B. Astliana ai).d ·c . .P. Lal, for the resp0ndertt.
1
. ' . .
. . . . ,
' .
~
'
.
' ' ~
1955. 'March' 15. The - Judgment -of
the -Court
was- deliv~ed by
·
jAGANNADHADAS' J.'-'This is
an appeal ' by -leave
granted . by the -High Court 'of ·Allahabad presumably·
under artide 134( 1) ( c) ·of the Constitution. The facts
are simple.
Three persons · including, · the
appellant
were, at the -material time, pared porters af the railway station Manikpur in the district Bartda of· Uttar
Pradesh. Qn the night 'of the 18th June, 1952, they
we;e· fotinCl by two waichi'nen of the Watch 'and Ward·
staff -attached to the railw_ay stati@, .cominitti1).g' theft
of certain· packets of biscuits. by breaking open a railW?Y parcel containing those packets, which as parcel
porters, - they · had occasion to handle. First information of the same w:is lodged,_ before the ~u!J-I~spector,
Railway Police, by one Ra!Il Prasad, Head Watchman_, The Raiiway Police. _filed the charge~;heet . under
section- 379 of the . Indian Penal Code on· the 20th
June, 1952, - The case was taken -cognizance of by the
Railway· Magistrate, Manikpur. All the three accused
plead~.d guilty: They _ were convieted by the · Magistrate on the; 15th' July, 1952, .and' sentencea to
7 a fine_
of Rs. 25 each. Against this convicti0n the .. present
appellant, filed· a revision_. to the Sessions . , Judge of
Banda.
It is necessary at this stage to meRtion . .that .
under the . U. P .. P.anchayat Raj . Act, .1947, . the . Panchayati Adalats in" U.P.. have, criminal-
.jurisdiction "
in certain matters'; The point taken •before the Ses- -
sions T udge was that' by virtue of the said · Act, · the
pres~nt '. case should _ have - been tried -•by -the' 'Panchayati Adil.lat' and that the Railway Magistrate had -
no jurisdiction. This contention was _ accepted by the
learned Sessions JuClgc: 'He accorqirigly
made a reference to the High Court for quashing - the conviction
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1447
and sentence. It came before a Single Judge of the
High Court who did not feel · quite satisfied that the
Railway
Magistrate
had
jurisdiction.· ·But · without
deciding the question ' ohe way or the other, he declined to accept the reference ·on the · ground that
the revisional jurisdiction of· the · High Court was
discretionary.
Somewhat · curiously
however,
the
learned Judge · granted a certificate against his - own
judgment that the case is a fit one for- appeal to .the
Supreme Court. If the learned 'Judge thought fit to
grani: leave to appeal, he might well have himself
decided ·the question· involved so that we should have
had the benefit of his· consideration of the same.·
-To d~cide the question of jurisdiction th~s raised it
is necessary to, ,notice the scheme of the U.P. Panchayat, Raj
A~t, 1917 (U.]J. A,ct XXVI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to_ as the. Act) and a few · relevant
sections. 9f the. sall1e. "It. -may be mentiOned' that the
Act appears. to have , undergone some _ amendments in
the ypr 1952 and . recently .in
1955. _ These .amendments have .no _application to the present ·case. ·Under
the Act, . as it stood at· the time of i:he commission of
the· o#ence _ and . the · conviction therefor, the scheme
thereunder is as follows : Under 'section 3, the ·. State
Government
shall; . by : . · notification . in
the
official
Gazette, establish . a Gaon Sabha for . every village or
group of _villages. Under section· 42, the State Government . or . the . prescribed aμthority
shall divide a
disti;ict . in_to 'circles, each circle comprising
as . many
area~ · sμbject to. the . jμrisdiction of _ Gaon Sabha
·as
-t
mav .. be e;icpedient .. · Th~ .State Goverrμnent shall . also
establish ... Panchayati . Adalats for each such . circle,
provided-that the areas. of· Gaon Sabhas within each
circk ,shall,. as. fai: .a~- pos~ible~. be
(ontig~ous.' ~ \Jnd~r
section, 43,, eyery . paon Sabha. in . a ci_rcle . shall elect
five ... aqults
of. prescribed
qualificatipn
permanently
residing within its ·jurisdiction to act· as. Pariches in
the Pan.chayati Adalat of that circle. The Panches so
elected.· by all _the Gaori Sabhas ·fil a circle shall form
a pariel. · Under · section 44 all
the Panches ·· elected
unde{ sestion: 43 .. shall de~i: 'f~om ·~ong themselves • a
person who is able to record proceedings and to act,
-1955
Bhim Sen
v.
The State of U. P.
Jagannadhadas .7-
•955
Bhim Srn
v.
.
Thi State of U. P.
Jagaaaadhaaas j.
1448
StJJIREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
as Sarpanch of the Partehayati Adalat. As will be
seen from
the
subsequent
sections the Panchayati
Adalat has jurisdiction to deal with all disputes and
cases, both
civil
and
criminal,
arising within its
area but it is enough for the present case to notice
only those portions which relate to criminal jurisdiction.
Sectfon 52(1)
provides that certain
specified
offences, if committed within the jurisdiction of a
Panchayati Adalat (which in this context must be
taken to tefer to local jurisdiction) shall be cognizable
by such Panchayati Adalat. The clauses of sub-section ( 1) of section 52 specify the various classes of
offences under the Indian Penal Code and under some
other special and local Acts which are within the cognizance
of
the
Panchayati
Adalat.
Section
379,
Indian Penal Code, is one of the sections so enumerated and it is specifically provided that the jurisdiction of the Adalat in respect of this offence is only
where the theft of the stolen property does not exceed
Rs. 50.
Section 51(1)
provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, every case instituted under the Act shall
be instituted before the Sarpanch of the Panchayati
Adalat of the circle in which the offence is committed.
It is also provided under section
55 that no
court shall take cognizance of any case which is cognizable under the Act by the Panchayati
Adalat unless an order has been passed by a Sub-Divisional
Magistrate under section
85.
Section
85 authorises
a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on an application of a
party or on his own moti9n, to cancel the jurisdiction
of the Panchayati Adalat with regard to any pending
case if there is an apprehension of miscarriage of justice. Section 49 provides the machinery for the trial
of cases by the formation of benches to dea.J with the
same. It is necessary to set out the whole of that
section in so far as it relates to criminal cases and it
is as follows :
"49.
(1) The Sarpanch shall, for the trial of
every case, form a bench of five Panches from the
panel (the panel referred to in section 43 above noticed)
,provided that at least one of the Panches in the bench
-
-
...
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1449
shall be a person who . is able to record evidence and
proceedings.
(2) Every such bench shall include one Panch
who resides in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which
the complainant of a case resides and likewise one
Panch in the area m which the. accused resides and
three Panches residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha
in which neither party resides, provided that in police
cases one Panch shall be such as may be residing in
the Gaon Sabha in which the offence was committed,
one Panch residing in the area of Gaon Sabha in which
the accused resides and three Panches residing in the
areas other than those mentioned above.
(3) ............................................... .
( 4) Notwithstanding
anything
contained
in
this
~ection, the State Government may, by rules,
prescribe
the
constitution
of
special
benches
for
determin.ing any dispute arising between any parties
or Gaon Sabhas or different circles or for any other
purpose''.
One of the rules framed with reference to this subsection which 1s relevant for the present purpose
1s
rule 84 and is as follows :
"For the purposes of trial or decision of any case
or proceeding parties of which are residents of different circles or different districts or any one of the
parties is a resident of a place not governed by the Act, the
pre~ribed authority having jurisdiction over the Panchayati Adalat in which a case or proceeding is
instituted or transferred for disoosal shall constitute
a special bench consisting of Panches of the said Panchayati Adalat and if convenient and possible may
include a Panch of the other circle and shall appoint
one of them as Chairman of the bench unless the Sarpanch is a member of it".
The question of jurisdiction arises with reference to
the above provisions
of the Act. The charge-sheet
filed by the police shows that the theft of the property
involved in the case is Rs. 3. There can also be no
doubt that the offence has been. committed within the
limits of Manikpur. It would appear, therefore, prima
1955
Bhim Sen
v.
The State of U. F.
Jagannadhadas J.
1955
Bhim'Stn
v.
717' "State of U. P.
Jagannadhadas J.
1450
SUPREME COURT E.EPORTS
[ 1;955]
facie that .by virtue of sections 51 arid 52, the }?anchayati Adalat of Manikpur had jurisdicticm
.~o try
the case... If so, the jurisdiction . of the regular Magistrate would . appear .to qe barred urider section _55 .of
the Act, since it is not . suggested that there · \:tali been
any ord.er. under section 85.
But there is. a sc\rious
difficulty in the way of the
e'ferci~e , of this . jurisdi,ction by the Adalat..
. .
,
,
, , ,.'
The jurisdiction of the Adalat to· try any criminal
case has to be exercised by a bench of the Panches to
be formed by
the Sarpanch under section 49 of the
Act. · The 'bench has to consist· of
five
Panches of
whom one is to be of the Gaon Sabha ·of Manikpur
(since the offence was committed in that place and
this is . a police case) and another belonging to the Gaon
Sabha of the accused and the other three from Gaon
Sabhas . outside the above two. Where there is only
one accused and that accused belongs to an .. area
within Uttar Pradesh · for which a Gaon Sabha has
been formed under the Act or where there are more
than one accused all belonging to the area of the same
Gaon Sabha, the constitution of a bench of the Panchayati Adalat for the trial of such a case presents
no difficulty. But in the present case it is oh the record that one out of the three accused by name Tulsi
belongs to Jubbalpore in Madhya Pradesh. It was,
therefore, not possible to constitute a bench in strict
compliance with section 49(2) of the Act to try his
case.
Recourse had, ·therefore, to be had to section
49(4) and the rules framed thereunder. The relevant
rule 84 (which has been quoted above) no doubt provides for the constitution of special benches to try
cases where there are more than one accused who are
residents of different areas. Now this rule in so far as
it provides for cases wherein all ·the parties concerned
are residents of Uttar Pradesh may be unexceptionable. But whether it is valid in so far as it provides
for the exercise of jurisdiction in respect of a resident
outside the State , may be open to argument · on more
grounds than one. In the present case, it is sufficient
to consider whether this portion of the rule is valid,
with- reference to section 49(4) under which it is
-
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1451
framed. Section 49( 4) authorises the . Government to
frame rules for , the constitution · of special benches
"for determining disputes between parties of different
circles
or Gaon
Sabhas
or for any other purpose".
"Circles or Gaon Sabhas" mentioned herein has reference only to circles and Gaon . Sabhas constituted
under the Act. This does not .authori~e the framing
of a rule in so far as it relates to a person belonging
to a place outside the State. Nor tan the phrase "for
any other purpose" in sub-section ( 4) of section 49
whatever that may mean-be construed so widely as
to authorise a rule affecting such. an. outsider, assuming without deciding, that a statutory provision · by a
State Legislature can, directly or by delegation and
in terms, validly provide for
the exercise
of .such
jurisdiction by a Panchayati Adalat. We are clearly
of the opinion that rule 84 in so far as it relates to the
constitution of a special bench where one of the .parties belongs to a place outside . the State is ultra vires.
Hence no competent bench could be constituted under
section 49 of the. Act for the trial of the present case
in which there are three accused of whom one is a
person belonging to a different State.
Now, in these circumstances, it has to be considered
whether the trial of this case by the ordinary criminal Court is barred. The bar of the jurisdiction of
the ordinary criminal Court is brought about by section 55 of the Act.
But it requires to be noticed that
the bar which is brought about by the section, is a
bar which relates to the case as a whole. Because, in
terms, what it says is "no court shall take cognizance
of any case which is cognizable under the Act by a
Panchayati Adalat".
Under section 2(a) of the
Act
a "case" is defined as meaning "criminal proceeding
in respect of an offence triable by a Panchayati
Adalat" and "Panchayati Adalat" is defined as "including a bench thereof". It is clear, therefore, that
this bar has reference to the entire proceeding, i.e., as
involving all the accused together. Such a bar in respect of the entire case can be operative only where
there is a valid machinery for the trial thereof. In
the present case in which at least one of the accused
1955
Bhim Sm
v.
TM State of U. P.
Jagannadhadas ].
__ ,
BhiT!I Sen
v.
Thi Stale of u. P.
Jagannadhadas J.
Sl)PREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
(though nor this very appellwt) is a person coming
from an area outside the local extent of the Act, any
bench of the Ada1at that can be valid! y formed thereunder 'Cannot try the three accused together a11d hence
can have no jurisdiction over the whole case. The
jurisdiction of the regular criminal court in respect of
such a case cannot be taken away by the operation of
section 55 of the Act. It is to be remembered that
the jurisdiction of the criminal courts under section 5
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
comprehensive.
That section enjoins that all offences under the Indian
Penal Code shall be investigated, enquired into, tried
and otherwise dealt with "according to the provisions
hereinafter contained". To the extent that no valid
machinery is set up under the U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act for the trial of any particular case, the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal court under section 5,
Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be held to have
been excluded. Exclusion
of jurisdiction of a court
of general jurisdiction, can be brought about by the
setting up of a court of limited jurisdiction, in respect
of the limited field, only if the vesting and the exercise of that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative.
Where, as in this case, there is no adequate machinery
for the exercise of this jurisdiction in a specific case,
we cannot hold that the exercise of jurisdiction in
respect of such a case by the Court of general jurisdic·
tion is illegal.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
Railway Magistrate had the jurisdiction to try the case.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
-
-