http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.