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

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 19-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 dis-
missed 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, 94-
lndian 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 con-
viction 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 sen-
tence" and the. filing of appeal or revision did not, unless 
specifically ordered, arrest the operation of the- order impos-
ing 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 Allaha-
bad High Court in Crimin1tl Reference No. 470 of 
1958. 
K.P. Gupta, for the appellants. 
G. 0 . .bfathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respon-
dent 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, procee-
dmgs 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.