Special criminal court jurisdiction failed where no valid Panchayati Adalat bench could be lawfully constituted for all accused.

The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 conferred cognizance of specified offences on the Panchayati Adalat and barred ordinary criminal courts only where that special forum could lawfully and effectively try the case. Because the Adalat could act only through a validly constituted bench, and one accused was resident outside Uttar Pradesh, no competent bench could be formed to try all accused together. The statutory exclusion of ordinary court jurisdiction therefore did not operate, and the ordinary criminal court retained jurisdiction to try the case. The objection based on Panchayati Adalat jurisdiction failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ordinary criminal court retained jurisdiction to try the offence when the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 conferred cognizance on the Panchayati Adalat, but no valid bench could be constituted because one accused belonged to a place outside the State.

Analysis: The statutory scheme gave the Panchayati Adalat cognizance over specified offences committed within its local limits and barred ordinary courts where the case was cognizable by the Adalat. But the Adalat's criminal jurisdiction had to be exercised through a bench constituted under the Act. The provision empowering special benches, read with the rule framed under it, could not validly extend to a person residing outside the State. Since one accused was outside Uttar Pradesh, no competent bench could be lawfully formed to try all the accused together. The statutory bar on ordinary courts operated only where a valid and workable machinery existed for the whole case; absent such machinery, the general criminal court's jurisdiction was not displaced.

Conclusion: The ordinary criminal court had jurisdiction to try the case, and the objection based on the Panchayati Adalat's jurisdiction failed.

---