Palakdhari Singh & Others. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

/,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.

Held, that 1. 70 Indian Penal Code was applicable to 1~62 convictions by the Panchayati Adalats and that . the recovery Patakdliari Singh. of the fine after the expiry of six years from the date of con-v. viction was barred. There was no provision in the U. P. 'rh1 Sta!e of Panchayat Raj Act prescribing any period of limitation or Ultar Pre<derh 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 Kapur]. 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

652 SUPRE~iE COlRT REI'Ol1TS (lf62) SlJI>P. 191;2 Penal Code. Tho learned Sub·Divisional Magis· P•loidh4ti Singh traw by his order da.too February 6, 19158, held the

v, recovery of the fine to be barred under that section. Tn. St.,, of But a revision was taken to the District Magistrate U ttar p, adtslt.

J. who recommended tbe setting aside of the order of Kapur 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 con-viction 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 provi-sions 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, cer-tain 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, pro-visions 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 :

I 2 S,.Q.It. ' S,UP1nw::moo1JR'IitREPORT8. 653 '

[,"any fil)"Q. ·iinpnsed;! mr >oomp'ensation 1902 ortlllr~d to be, P\tici-in s. 61 by a Kyaya Pan-r Pal1lkdhari Singh 1 ;- v. ,cha.yJl.t. .sharH·"·be.~irec'overable iin the manner The Stqte o.f t R\'PSIJribed.-.But if tho.Nyaya•J'ancliayat finds Uttar Prade~h I nXJ..Jl;\Ldifljpulty.tin,itsl recovc><ry; it may request .b."apm J., I thp Sub-DivisionaHMa!!i't.rA.M .within whose

"~ jur~~diqt!Pq !Jr.,;; Jgya,y1t P;i,11c1J:3:Y?<t p()s .-to re-

cillyet it ,11nii)l~,'~hall,re60,ver·jt 'as if t.11e B<\Il;, tcnce "of fino lrnd \icen p:isserl .1v py him.:• , ,, Y"'~·JJ••' lf u ....... " 1 -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-appli-eability of s. 70 of1th.o•[n-dl.ih F'enili Code to senkn-ce~,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-Divi-sri;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 Pancha-ya'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 t li e.· ii ~0' .prr.srp I 'b \ te1wM•'lt,8. • ,..y,giig ~. ' l ,

11i:rigµag~ }JJ!,i{!. ¢."passing-or -'· • bs ,tn1~ to bEj the-date tbe f<en,tent:e" bytC!1u,rt, whichl'pa.3;res srr.::h''!itder"antl: thti''filiTfg<Iof' ~ippr~ 1"01'1'

Q54 SUPREME COUR't·REPORTS [1!56~) SUPP.

1962 revision does not, unless specifically ordered, arrest

the operation cif the order of passing of the sen-Pa/akdha-ri Sint.h

v, tence of conviction. In the present case the limi-The State of tation started from the date of conviction by the Uttar Pradesh Panchavati Adalat and not from 'the date of dismis-