Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 12 docs - [View All]
The Indian Penal Code
Section 70 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 54 in The Indian Penal Code
The U. P. Sugarcane Cess (Validation) Act, 1961
Citedby 4 docs
Keshav Datta Misra vs State on 5 February, 1965
Kamal Kishor Singh And Anr. vs The State Of U.P. on 9 January, 1980
Brahameshwar Prasad Sinha And ... vs State Of Bihar on 1 May, 1980
Sh. Bakshish Singh Dhaliwal Thru ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 20 March, 2007

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Supreme Court of India
Palakdhari Singh & Others vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And ... on 19 January, 1962
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1145, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 650
Author: K L.
Bench: Kapur, J.L.
           PETITIONER:
PALAKDHARI SINGH & OTHERS.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
19/01/1962

BENCH:
KAPUR, J.L.
BENCH:
KAPUR, J.L.
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:
 1962 AIR 1145		  1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 650
 CITATOR INFO :
 D	    1979 SC1263	 (5)


ACT:
     Limitation-Panchayati Adalat-Fine	imposed on
conviction-Recovery after  expiry of  six years-If
barred-U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. (U.P. XXVI of
1947) ss.  54, 83, 94-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV
of 1960) s. 70.



HEADNOTE:
     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
confirmed 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. The
respondent contended that s. 70 was not applicable
to convictions	by Panchayati Adalats and that the
limitation started  from the  date of the order of
the High Court.
651
^
     Held,  that  s.  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
conviction 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 to sentences of
fine  imposed	by  the	 Panchayati  Adalats.  The
limitation started  from the  date of the "passing
of the	sentence" and  the  filing  of	appeal	or
revision did  not,  unless  specifically  ordered,
arrest the  operation of  the order  imposing  the
sentence.



JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1960.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September, 7 1959, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Reference No. 470 of 1958.

K.P. Gupta, for the appellants.

G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent No. 1, 1962, January 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J.-This appeal raises the question of the applicability of s. 70 of the Indian Penal Code to fines imposed in convictions for offences under the Indian Penal Code but tried by Tribunals called the Panchayati Adalats, now known as Nyaya Panchayats.

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. 751/- each. A revision against that order was taken to the High Court which was dismissed on May 13, 1953. In January 1958, proceedings were taken 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 Penal Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated February 6, 1958, held the recovery of the fine to be barred under that section. But a revision was taken to the District Magistrate who recommended the setting aside of the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that there 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 Panchayati Adalat can be realised. It is against this order that the appellants have brought this appeal by special leave.

The conviction of the appellants was under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and if they had been tried and convicted by a Magistrate acting under the Criminal Procedure Code, the recovery of the fine would have been barred under s. 70, Indian Penal Code. But it is submitted that if the conviction is by a Panchayati Adalat, the ban on the recovery of the fine after the expiry of six years limitation is no longer applicable.

It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (Act XXVI of 1947), hereinafter called the `Act', as applicable to the facts of this case. Under s. 52 of the Act, certain offences are cognizable by the Panchayati Adalats and the offence under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code is one of them. Section 54 empowers these Panchayati Adalats to impose penalties and it is provided that they have no power to inflict substantive sentences of imprisonment or imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Under s.83, provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Limitation Act, are made inapplicable excepting to the extent that the Act makes them applicable. Section 94 provides for recovery of fine and it runs as follows :

653
"any fine imposed, or compensation ordered to be paid in s. 61 by a Nyaya Panchayat shall be recoverable in the manner prescribed. But if the Nyaya Panchayat finds and difficulty in its recovery, it may request the Sub-Divisional Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the Nyaya Panchayat lies to recover it and he shall recover it as if the sentence of fine had been passed by him."

Rule 82 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules deals with the limitation for writing off of fines and jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalats. It provides as to how fines which are not recoverable can be written off, but there is no provision in this rule as to the period of limitation. Therefore as far as the Act is concerned, there is no provision prescribing a period of limitation or providing for the non-applicability of s. 70 of the Indian Penal Code to sentences of fine passed by the Panchayati Adalats. As a matter of facts. 94 of the Act provides that if there is difficulty in the recovery of a fine, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall recover it as if it was a fine imposed by himself, which supports the contention of the appellants that the period of limitation as provided in s. 70 of the Indian Penal Code is not made inapplicable to convictions by Panchayati Adalats. In our opinion the District Magistrate as well as the High Court were in error in holding that the period of limitation provided by s. 70 of the Indian Penal Code is inapplicable to the recovery of fines imposed by Panchayati Adalats.

It was next argued that the final order which is the terminus & quo under s. 70 of the Indian Penal Code is the orders of the High Court passed in revision on May 13, 1953 and from that date the proceedings for recovery are within time. But the language of s. 70 prescribes the terminus & quo to be the date of "passing of the sentence" by Court which passes such order and the filing of appeal or 654 revision does not, unless specifically ordered, arrest the operation of the order of passing of the sentence of conviction. In the present case the limitation started from the date of conviction by the Panchayati Adalat and not from the date of dismissal of Revision by the High Court.

We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated February 6, 1958.

Appeal Allowed.