Sarkar, C.J. On a companyplaint of trespass the police registered a case against the respondents under S. 447 of the Penal Code.
was delivered by BACHAWAT J. HIDAYATULLAH J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
The respondents were later arrested by the police and released on the execution of surety bonds whereby the sureties undertook to produce them as required by the police.
The case against the respondents was thereafter put up before the Nyaya Panchayat, a companyrt established under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated July 9, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No.
but numbersentence of imprisonment in lieu of fine was imposed on them.
The respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, and companytended for the first time that s. 63 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949 is violative of Art.
In ,hat companyrt, fresh bonds were executed by sureties on behalf of the respondents to ensure their presence during the trial.
The arrests were made without warrants issued by a magistrate.
75 each.
22 1 of the Constitution and their trials and companyvictions were illegal.
The State of Madhya Pradesh number appeals to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.
The Nyaya Panchayat, after trial, companyvicted and sentenced the respondents to a fine of Rs.
They then filed a second application for revision in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and inter alia companytended that the trial was vitiated because they were deprived of their right to be defended by companynsel guaranteed under Art.
The respondents were arrested by the Police without a warrant from a Magistrate, for an alleged offence under s. 447, Indian Penal Code and were released on bail.
The case was heard on several days, and on January 31, 1963, the Nyaya Panchayat companyvicted all the respondents under s. 447 and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.
After investigation the case was sent for trial before the Nyaya Panchayat, Barwani.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The companyviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani.
Hence the present appeal.
The respondents then moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in revision which set aside the companyviction.
166 of 1963.
75 each.
20 of 1965.
Fresh bail bonds were obtained from them by the Nyaya Panchayat.
3 The Judgment of SARKAR C.J. and MUDHOLKAR J. was delivered by SARKAR C.J. The Judgment of BACHAWAT and SHELAT JJ.
The High Court accepted these companytentions, and by its order dated July 9.
Sir Walter Raleigh was also denied assistance of companynsel and was cross examined by Popham C.J. without being warned or companyfronted with witnesses whose statements were used against him 1 .
D. Sharma, for the respondents.
A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate General, Kerala, B. R. L. Iyengar, A. G. Pudessery and M. R. K. K. Pillai for Intervener No.
Sen and 1.
N. Shroff, for the appellant.
V. Rangam, for Intervener No.
The respondents were fined Rs.
R. G. K. Achar, for intervener No.
On the same day, the respondents appeared before the Nyaya Panchayat, and executed fresh bonds with sureties for appearance before the Nyaya Panchayat.
On November 20, 1962, the Station Officer submitted to the Nyaya Panchayat, Bar wani a charge sheet against all the respondents.
Subsequently, the respondents were released by the Station Officer on execution of bail bonds with sureties for appearance in the Court of Nyaya Panchayat, Barwani and other companyrts.
On April 9, 1963, the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani dismissed a revision application filed by the respondents.
The respondents filed an application for revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani but were unsuccessful.
