V.D. Bhargava, J.@mdashThis is an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on behalf of ten persons who have been convicted u/s 323 and fined Rs. 20 each u/s 506 to Rs. 15/- each. There were two cross cases. Allah Noor, opposite party No. 3, filed a complaint in the Panchayati Adalat Shahzadpur Under Sections 323 and 506, IPC against the Petitioners and one Ram Singh. The other complaint was filed by Petitioner No. 8 Allah Din which is treated as a cross case. On the facts alleged in the complaint it was contended that the case was triable by the Magistrate only and was not triable by the Panchayati Adalat. Allah Din Petitioner No. 8 filed an application before Sub-Divisional Magistrate Hathras and prayed that the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat to try the case against the Petitioners on the complaint filed by Allah Noor be cancelled and the case be brought on the file of that court. The S.D.M. on 27-9-1954 granted the prayer and transferred the case from the court of the Nyaya Panchayat to his own court and that case was connected with the cross case filed by the Petitioner No. 8. Thereafter these two cases were transferred to the court of Sri Jain, Magistrate Hathras who issued the summons and took cognizance of the case and recorded some evidence. Thereafter he came to the conclusion that the case was triable by the Nyaya Panchayat and therefore transferred both the cases to the Nyaya Panchayat. So far as the cross complaint is concerned it has not yet been disposed but the complaint filed by opposite party No. 3 Allah Noor has been disposed of by the Nyaya Panchayat. An objection had also been taken about the constitution of the Nyaya Panchayat but it is not very much material for this case.
2. The main objection taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that when once the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat was cancelled by the S.D.M. it was not open to another Magistrate to review that order and to transfer the case to the Nyaya Panchayat. It was contended on behalf of the Opposite parties that it could be done u/s 56 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act which provides that ''a court, if it finds that a case is triable by a Nyaya Panchayat, shall, except as provided in Sub-Section 4 of Section 55 transfer the case to the Nyaya Panchayat of competent jurisdiction which shall thereafter try the same de-novo.'' The question still remains whether if once the jurisdiction has been cancelled is it open to a court to transfer the case to a Nyaya Panchayat. In any event, even if this is permissible Section 56 has a special proviso to the effect that if Sub-section (4) of Section 55 is applicable then it was not open to the Magistrate to transfer the case. Here the court of Mr. Jain had taken cognizance and summons had been issued for the appearance of the accused and even evidence was recorded. In the circumstances even u/s 56 if once cognizance is taken by the court it is not open to that court to transfer the case. In the circumstances it was not open to Mr. Jain to transfer the case to the Nyaya Panchayat and the decision by the Nyaya Panchayat cannot stand. I, therefore, allow this petition; quash the order of the Nyaya Panchayat. The Petitioners shall be entitled to their costs.
