BALDEO SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 02-04-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
995 
time, determined 
to 
see 
that their victim did not 
possibly escape the assassins' hands. 
As regards the second appellant, we need 
not say 
anything more than that he was lucky enough to 
escape conviction under s. 
302 of the Indian Penal 
Code, for the reasons 'given by the High Court, which 
may not bear close scrutiny. He amply deserves the 
punishment of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment under 
s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 
For the reasons aforesaid, both the appeals fail and 
are dismissed. 
Appeals dismissed. 
BALDEO SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
(S. R. 
DAS c. J., 
]AFER 
IMAM, s. K. 
DAS, 
GOVINDA 
MENON and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Gram Cutchet'l'y-Criminal 
Jurisdictio11-Concu1-re1,t 
jurisdic-
tion 
of ordinary ffiminal Courts-Enactment, if discriminatory in 
character.-Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihm· Act 7 of 1948), 
ss. 60, 62, 68, 69, 70, 73-Co11sti1t1tion of India, A1·t. 14. 
The appellants 
wcr~ coilvicte<l of an offence under s. 379 of 
the Indian Penal Code by a full bench of the Gram Cutcherry 
constituted under 
the 
provisions 
of 
the 
Bihar 
Panchayat Raj 
Act, 1947. It was contended for the appellants that the convic· 
tion was bad on the grounds int<T alia, that s. 62 of the 
Act 
which provided for the criminal jurisdiction of Gram Cutcherries 
ga \'e concurrent jurisdiction to the ordinary criminal Courts and 
left it open to a party 
to go either to. the ordinary criminal 
Courts or to a bench of the Gram Cutcherry, and as the procedure 
followed in 
the ordinary 
criminal 
Courts 
was 
substantially 
different from that followed by a Gram Cutcherry, the Act was 
discriminatory in 
nature and as such infringed Art. 14 of the 
Constitution. 
Held, that 
the impugned provisions of the 
Act · are 
net 
discriminatory in nature. 
The scheme of the 
Act 
is 
that a case or suit ·cognizable 
under the Act by a Gram Cutcherry should be tried only by it 
unless the 
Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate 
or 
the 
Munsif concerned 
chooses to take action under s. 70 or s. 73 of the Act. 
The 
1957" 
V adioelu The var 
v. 
. The Stak of 
Madras 
Sinha J. 
1957 
April 2. 
1957 
Daf.deo Singh 
and OtherJ 
v. 
The State of 
Bihar and OthtrJ 
S. /[.Das]. 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
reference 
to concurrent 
jurisdiction 
in s. 
62 is 
explainable 
by 
reason of the 
provisions 
in ss. 69, 
70 
and 73, so that on the 
transfer or withdrawal of a case fro1n the 
Gr~un Cutcherry or the 
cancellation of the 
jurisdiction of 
the 
bench, 
it may not 
be 
said that the ordinary criminal 
Courts also have no jurisdiction to 
try it. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 145 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated July 20, 1954, of the Patna High Court in 
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 228 of 1954 . 
. S. P. Verma. for the appellants. 
R. C. Prasad. for the respondents. 
1957. Aoril 22. The Judgment of the Court was 
·delivered b~ 
S. K. 
DAs J.-J'his is 
an appeal by special 
leave 
from an order cf summary dismissal passed by the 
High Court of Pama on lulv 20. 1954. on an appli-
cation under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of 
India. The relevant facts are these. One Uma Shankar 
Prasad instituted a case against eight persons, includ-
ing the 
three 
appellants before us. 
Baldeo Singh, 
Ramdeo Singh and Sheodhar Singh, on the allegation 
that they had 
forcibly cut 
and removed 'urad' and 
'kodo' crops from his 
field 
in 
village Darwan on 
October 1. 
1953. at about IO a.m. Uma Shankar said 
that he objected, 
but was 
threatened 
with 
assault. 
The case was instituted before the Gram Cutcherry of 
Bankat in the 
district of 
Chamoaran, constituted 
under the provisions of the 
Biha,-
Panchavat Raj Act, 
1947 (Bihar Act 7 of 1948), hereinafter referred to 
as 
the Act. Altogether four witnesses were examined in 
the case, two on behalf of the prosecution and two 
for the accused persons. The defence of some of 
the 
accused persons was that the land on which the crops 
stood belonged to one Yogi Sahni. who had sold it to 
Sunder Singh, accused, on 
September 25. 
1953. On 
December 28, 1953, a bench of the Gram Cutcherry 
acquitted all the accused persons. 
On Tanuary 7, 1954, 
Uma Shankar Prasad preferred an appeal under s. 67 
of the Act. The appeal was heard on June 24, 1954, 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
997 
and the full bench by a majority, with three dissentient 
panches, held the t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.