1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 ot the Constitution of India to quash the order dated April 20, 1968 of the Sub-Divisional Judge, Bilaspur which had been passed under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1952.

2. The respondent complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 277/283 of the Indian Penal Code before the Nyaya Panchayat of village Dadhole, District Bilaspur. He was convicted by a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and the Full Bench accepting the appeal acquitted him. Against this acquittal the respondent filed a revision before the Sub-Divisional Judge, Bilaspur who, by the aforesaid order, quashed the order passed by the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat acquitting the petitioner and restored the original order of conviction of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat.

3. The petitioners complaint is that the Sub-Divisional Judge had jurisdiction only to quash the order of the Nyaya Panchayat but he had not jurisdiction to restore the earlier order of a Bench of the Panchayat.

4. Section 2 (c) of the Act defines "case" as meaning a criminal proceeding in respect of an offence triable by a Nyaya Panchayat. Section 2(j) defines "Nyaya Panchayat" as meaning a Nyaya Panchayat established under Section 47 and includes a Bench thereof

5. Certain sections of this Act may be set out :

"56. (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 every case instituted under this Act shall be instituted before the Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat of the Gram Sabha area in which the offence was committed;

Provided that such case may be instituted before such Panch as has been authorised by the prescribed authority to receive complaints in the area in which the offence was committed."

"59. A Nyaya Panchayat may impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 100/- but shall not inflict a sentence of imprisonment, either substantive or in default of payment of fine.

"92. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order or decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat may appeal in the prescribed manner and within a period of thirty days from the date of such order or decision to the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat of the circle consisting of :

(a) two out of five members of the Bench who heard or decided the case, suit or proceeding.

(b) and the remaining members of the Nyaya Panchayat who were not members of the Bench who heard and decided the case, suit or proceeding, and the appeal shall be heard by such Bench in the prescribed manner.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) an appeal may be heard or decided by nine or more of the Panchayat of the Full Bench of the circle and no hearing or decision shall be invalid merely because of the presence of only nine or more of the Panchas at the hearing.

(3) The selection of two members out of the five of the Bench who heard and decided the case, suit or proceeding for the purpose of the appeal mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 92 shall be made in the prescribed manner."

"93. (l) A revision from any order or decree passed by a Bench or a full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat in a case or suit shall lie to the Sub-Divisional Judge, and in proceedings under the Punjab Revenue Act, 1887, as applied to Himachal Pradesh to the Sub-Divisional Officer having jurisdiction in the matter.

(2) If there has been a mis-carriage of justice or if there is an apprehension of mis-carriage of justice in any case, suit or proceeding or if the Bench or the full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it any law the Sub-Divisional Judge in respect of any case or any suit and the Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of any proceeding under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as applied to Himachal Pradesh may on the application of any party or on his own motion at any time in a pending case, suit or proceeding, as the case may be and within sixty days from the date of decree or order call for the record of the case, suit or proceeding, as the case may be; from the Nyaya Panchayat and for reasons to be recorded in writing

(a) cancel the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat with regard to any case, suit or proceeding, or

(b) quash any decree or order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat at any stage. (4) Where an order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Judge under Sub-section (1) in respect of any case of suit, trial or complaint or otherwise in respect of the same offence, or on the same cause of action and for the same relief may be started in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judge having jurisdiction to try the case or suit and the period from the date of the institution of the suit be fore the Nyaya Panchayat to the date such order shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the fresh suit.

(4) Where an order has been passed under sub-section (1) by a Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of any proceeding under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887, as applied to Himachal Pradesh, a proceeding in respect of the same relief and on the same facts may be started before the Revenue Court having jurisdiction in the matter and the period from the date such proceeding was pending before the Nyaya Panchayat to the date of each order shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the fresh proceeding".

6. It is clear from the definition of "Nyaya Panchayat" as given in Section 2(j) of the Act that this expression includes a Bench as well as a Full Bench. A revision before the Sub-Divisional Judge is competent not only against a derision of a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat but also against a decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and it appears from the phraseology of sub-section (2) of Section 93 that it is not necessary for any person to file an appeal before a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and he can file a revision directly against the original decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat. This indicates that no distinction has been made between a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and a Full Bench thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 93 gives power to the Sub Divisional Judge to interfere with order passed by a Bench or a Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat in cases inter alia, of mis-carriage of justice or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it by law. While exercising this revisional jurisdiction, the Sub-Divisinal Judge can either cancel the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat or quash any decree or order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat. In this subsection no distinction has been made in so far as cancellation and quashing are concerned between decision of a Bench of a Nyaya Panchayat or of a Full Bench thereof. Then sub-section (b) of Section 93 provides that if an order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93, it is open to the parties affected to recommence the action in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judge which had been commenced by him in the Nyaya Panchayat.

7. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Judge is only to cancel and quash as provided by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 93 and that it was not open to the Sub-Divisional Judge in this instance to pass the order of restoration of the order of conviction by a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat. All that the Sub-Divisional Judge could do, it is contended, was to quash the order and then it was open to the parties concerned to re-commence the action in his Court.

8. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that what the Sub-Divisional Judge did in this instance was only to quash the order of the Fall Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat and the in evitable result of such quashing would be the restoration of the order of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat whereby the petitioner was convicted.

9. Section 93 and the definition Section do not make any distinction between a Bench and the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat. Both are included in the expression Nyaya Panchayat and even in there has been an appeal to the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat it cannot be said that the two decisions are of different bodies or authorities. Whether it is the decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat, which goes before the Sub-Divisional Judge in revision without the appeal before the Full Bench, or whether it is the decision of the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat makes no difference. It is the final decision which goes before the Sub-Divisional Judge for revision and it is difficult to say that the decision of a Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat continues to exist side by side with the decision of a Full Bench. The former merges into the latter and it is the latter alone which is the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat. If that is so then all that the Sub Divisional Judge could do was to cancel or quash whatever decision was before him for cancellation. If that decision is cancelled or quashed there is no decision left to be restored.

10. The decision of the Nyaya Panchayat in this case is that the petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and that will remain the only decision of the Nyaya Panchayat notwithstanding the fact that a Bench of it had earlier convicted him. If the decision of the Full Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat is quashed, nothing survives which can be restored.

11. The order of the Sub-Divisional Judge is not, therefore, with in the bounds of his jurisdiction, In exercise, therefore, of the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution I direct that the words and that of the Nyaya Panchayat is upheld" after the word "quashed" in the concluding part of the impugned order are struck off.

There shall be no order as to cost.