LexBHIM SEN versus THE STATE OF U.P
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 direc- tion and control of the appellant and of the minis- terial 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 pro- nounce 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 courts- JJ/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 Chair- man 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 consti- tute 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 consti- tuted 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. U
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.