Santok Singh Khalsa vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9842)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2842 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Santok Singh Khalsa vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9842) on 19 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:9842]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 600/2024

Santok Singh Khalsa S/o Harwant Singh, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o 1/4, Before Surya Marble, Sudarshna Nagar, Bikaner (Raj)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Pawan Kumar Dholia S/o Ladhuram, B/c Dholia, R/o H.
         No.1190, Prem Nagar, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District
         Fajilka, Punjab
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

REPORTABLE

19/02/2026

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated

21.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gram

Nyayalay, Kolayat in Criminal Complaint No. 26/2017, whereby

cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and process was

issued in the form of a warrant of arrest to secure the presence of

the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a criminal

revision before the learned District & Sessions Judge,

Bikaner and the matter was transferred to the Court of

the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner. The

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (2 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon hearing the parties,

dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of

cognizance passed by the Nyayadhikari. Hence, the present writ

petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable

length and have meticulously examined the material available on

record.

4. At the very threshold, it becomes imperative to advert to the

statutory architecture governing challenges to orders passed by a

Nyayadhikari under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008. Section 33 of

the Act provides for appeals in criminal cases and reads thus:

Section 33 - Appeal in Criminal Cases

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, no appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya except as provided hereunder.

(2) No appeal shall lie where--

(a) an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea;

(b) the Gram Nyayalaya has passed only a sentence of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees.

(3) Subject to sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie from any other judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya to the Court of Session.

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya.

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (3 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

(5) The Court of Session may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it thinks fit and the decision of the Court of Session shall be final.

Interpretation of sub-Sections (3), (4) & 5)

(a) Sub-section (3) of Section 33 constitutes the fulcrum of the

appellate framework engrafted within the statute. Subject to the

narrowly circumscribed exclusions contained in sub-section (2), it

mandates that an appeal shall lie from any other judgment,

sentence, or order of a Gram Nyayalaya to the Court of Session.

The legislative choice of the phrase "shall lie" is neither casual nor

permissive; it is couched in imperative terms, thereby creating a

vested and enforceable statutory right. The provision admits of no

discretion as to the availability of the remedy nor does it

contemplate an alternative procedural substitute.

The expression "any other judgment, sentence or order" is

deliberately expansive and comprehensive in amplitude. It

manifests a clear legislative intent to encompass within its sweep

every determinative pronouncement of the Gram Nyayalaya, save

those expressly excluded. By designating the Court of Session as

the exclusive appellate forum, the statute not only confers a

substantive right but also prescribes the precise judicial channel

through which that right must be exercised. The provision thus

establishes a structured appellate hierarchy and leaves no

interstitial space for the substitution of revisional remedies in

place of the expressly conferred appellate jurisdiction.

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (4 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

(b) Sub-section (4) reinforces the disciplined structure of this

appellate mechanism by prescribing a limitation period of thirty

days from the date of the impugned judgment, sentence, or order.

This temporal stipulation is not merely procedural formality; it is

an intrinsic component of the legislative design. The establishment

of Gram Nyayalayas is animated by the objective of expeditious

and accessible justice at the grassroots level. The prescription of a

defined period of limitation ensures prompt invocation of appellate

scrutiny, thereby harmonizing the right of appeal with the

competing necessity of finality and procedural certainty.

(c) Sub-section (5) completes the statutory edifice by

delineating the width and contours of the appellate power vested

in the Court of Session. It expressly mandates adherence to the

principle of audi alteram partem, thereby safeguarding procedural

fairness. More significantly, the phrase "pass such order as it

thinks fit" is of the widest import and confers plenary authority

upon the appellate court. The Court of Session is thereby

empowered to affirm, reverse, modify, remand, or otherwise alter

the impugned determination in exercise of comprehensive judicial

reconsideration. The declaration that the decision of the Court of

Session shall be final underscores the self-contained and

exhaustive nature of the appellate mechanism, evincing legislative

intent to preclude multiplicity of proceedings and to secure

terminative adjudication within the statutory hierarchy.

4. A conjoint and harmonious reading of sub-sections (1) to (5)

leaves no room for doubt that Section 33 constitutes a complete

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (5 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

and self-sufficient code governing criminal appeals from orders of

the Gram Nyayalaya. The legislative scheme is deliberate,

structured, and exhaustive: appeals are expressly confined to

those permitted under Section 33; specific exceptions are carved

out under sub-section (2); a mandatory right of appeal is

conferred under sub-section (3); a defined limitation period is

prescribed under sub-section (4); and plenary appellate powers

with statutory finality are vested under sub-section (5). The

conspicuous absence of any reference to revisional jurisdiction is

both eloquent and legally significant.

4.1. In such a statutory landscape, the remedy available to an

aggrieved party against an order of the Nyayadhikari is exclusively

by way of filing an appeal before the Court of Session. Resort to

revisional jurisdiction, in substitution of the prescribed appellate

remedy, would not merely be procedurally irregular; it would

constitute a deviation from legislative command and an

impermissible enlargement of jurisdiction.

4.2. In the present case, the petitioner or his counsel, instead of

availing the statutorily ordained appellate remedy, instituted a

revision petition before the learned District & Sessions Judge,

which ultimately came to be adjudicated by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge. The revisional court, without first undertaking a

threshold examination of maintainability and jurisdiction,

proceeded to adjudicate the matter on merits. Such an approach

overlooks the foundational principle that jurisdiction is conferred

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (6 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

by statute and cannot be assumed by inadvertence, acquiescence,

or consent of parties.

4.3. It is trite that the sine qua non of judicial adjudication is the

lawful existence of jurisdiction. The question of maintainability is

anterior to, and conditions, the exercise of judicial power. A court

is duty-bound, at the very inception, to satisfy itself that the lis

presented before it falls within the compass of its statutory

authority. Failure to undertake such foundational scrutiny amounts

to a jurisdictional aberration, rendering the resultant adjudication

vulnerable in law.

4.4. The statutory mandate of Section 33 admits of no ambiguity:

appellate jurisdiction therein is the sole and structured avenue of

challenge. Judicial discipline demands scrupulous adherence to the

boundaries so delineated, for the legitimacy of adjudicatory power

rests upon fidelity to the legislative framework within which it is

exercised.

4.5. The distinction between appeal and revision is not merely

procedural but substantive and conceptual:

1. Nature of Right:

An appeal is a creature of statute and constitutes a vested

legal right when expressly conferred. A revision, conversely,

is not a right inhering in the litigant; it is a discretionary

supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised to ensure legality and

propriety.

2. Scope of Scrutiny

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (7 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

In appellate jurisdiction, the court may reappreciate

evidence, reassess factual findings, and examine questions

of law and facts in their entirety. In revisional jurisdiction,

scrutiny is circumscribed to the legality, correctness, and

propriety of the impugned order, and ordinarily does not

extend to a re-evaluation of evidence unless patent illegality

or perversity is demonstrated.

3. Amplitude of Powers

An appellate court is vested with comprehensive authority to

confirm, reverse, modify, or remand the matter. A revisional

court exercises a narrower supervisory function to rectify

jurisdictional errors or manifest miscarriages of justice.

The conflation of appellate and revisional jurisdictions strikes

at the very architecture of the statutory scheme. Each jurisdiction

is conceived by the legislature with a distinct purpose, scope, and

amplitude. An appeal, being a substantive statutory remedy, is

intended to afford a comprehensive re-examination of the

impugned order both on facts and on law. A revision, in contrast,

is a circumscribed supervisory power designed to correct patent

illegality, jurisdictional error, or manifest miscarriage of justice. To

blur the demarcation between these two remedies is to subvert

the legislative intent and to distort the calibrated hierarchy of

judicial scrutiny.

4.6. When the legislature, in its wisdom, has expressly provided

an appellate remedy under Section 33 of the Gram Nyayalayas

Act, 2008, and has delineated the forum, limitation, and finality

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (8 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

attached thereto, the invocation of revisional jurisdiction is not

merely irregular, it is impermissible. The statutory prescription is

neither ornamental nor optional; it is mandatory and binding.

Courts are creatures of statute insofar as their jurisdiction is

concerned, and they cannot traverse beyond the boundaries so

ordained.

4.7. Judicial prudence, particularly at the level of a senior judicial

officer entrusted with supervisory authority, demands a vigilant

and scrupulous examination of maintainability at the very

threshold. The question of jurisdiction is foundational; it precedes

and conditions the exercise of adjudicatory power. A court must

first satisfy itself that it is lawfully empowered to entertain the

proceeding before embarking upon an evaluation of merits. Failure

to undertake such scrutiny renders the entire exercise vulnerable,

for jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acquiescence, consent, or

inadvertence.

4.8. Entertaining and adjudicating a revision in the face of an

express appellate remedy amounts to a jurisdictional

transgression of a fundamental character and an error non-

rectifiable. It results not only in procedural impropriety but in a

substantive deviation from the statutory command. Such an

approach erodes the discipline imposed by legislative design,

creates uncertainty in the administration of justice, and

undermines the hierarchical structure envisaged by law.

4.9. The demarcation and scrupulous observance of jurisdictional

boundaries is not a matter of procedural nicety but a foundational

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (9 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

precept upon which the legitimacy and authority of judicial power

indubitably rest. Courts derive their competence not from

convenience or acquiescence but strictly from the mandate of law,

and therefore the exercise of adjudicatory authority must

invariably remain confined within the contours delineated by the

governing statute. A court of law, while performing its solemn

adjudicatory function, cannot be regarded as a mere conduit

through which every petition filed must inevitably pass for

consideration. The institution of judicial proceedings does not, by

itself, compel the Court to entertain or adjudicate the matter.

Before assuming cognizance of any petition or application, it

becomes the solemn obligation of the Court to undertake a careful

and methodical examination of its jurisdictional competence.

4.10. Such an inquiry necessarily entails two indispensable

considerations. Firstly, the Court must ascertain whether it

possesses the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

matter presented before it. Secondly, it must determine whether

the subject matter of the lis falls within the statutory sphere of

authority conferred upon it. These jurisdictional predicates

constitute the threshold conditions precedent to the lawful

exercise of judicial power. Unless these foundational requirements

stand satisfied, any adjudicatory exercise undertaken by the Court

would be devoid of legal sanction.

4.11. Equally significant is the obligation of the Court to satisfy

itself that it is legally empowered to grant the relief sought by the

petitioner. The mere presentation of a grievance before a forum

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (10 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

does not ipso facto vest that forum with authority to adjudicate

the dispute. The Court must first be assured that the matter has

been brought before the legally appropriate and competent forum

contemplated by the statute. Judicial propriety requires that

courts refrain from entertaining proceedings that fall outside the

jurisdictional architecture designed by the legislature.

4.12. Closely allied to this inquiry is the well-entrenched doctrine

of exhaustion of statutory remedies. Where the legislature, in its

wisdom, has devised a specific and efficacious remedial

mechanism for redressal of grievances, the aggrieved party is

expected, as a matter of settled legal principle, to pursue that

remedy in the first instance. Such statutory remedies are neither

ornamental nor optional; they constitute the primary avenue

through which grievances must ordinarily be ventilated.

Consequently, attempts to circumvent the prescribed statutory

pathway by invoking alternative jurisdictions; whether by way of

petitions, revisions, or collateral proceedings, ought not to be

countenanced. In such circumstances, judicial discipline mandates

that the Court decline to entertain the matter at the very

threshold, without embarking upon an examination of the merits.

4.13. The rationale underlying this principle is both pragmatic and

jurisprudential. It preserves the hierarchical structure of judicial

remedies envisioned by the legislature, prevents multiplicity of

proceedings, and ensures that disputes are adjudicated in

accordance with the procedural order contemplated by law. The

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (11 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

maintenance of this discipline is indispensable to the orderly

administration of justice.

4.14. The present situation, however, reveals a matter of concern

that cannot be overlooked. While presiding over this roster, this

Court has noticed on several occasions, indeed in four or five

instances, that revision petitions have been entertained and

adjudicated by the learned Sessions Judge against orders passed

by the Nyayadhikari of the Gram Nyayalaya, notwithstanding the

clear statutory position that such revisional jurisdiction is not

contemplated under the governing legislative framework. This

recurring pattern indicates a departure from the statutory design

and necessitates a reaffirmation of the principles governing

jurisdiction.

4.15. If such a practice were to continue unchecked, it could

potentially give rise to an anomalous and disorderly situation

wherein litigants, disregarding the remedies specifically prescribed

by statute, might seek to invoke whichever forum appears most

expedient to them. Such an approach would undermine the

carefully structured hierarchy of remedies established by law and

could lead to considerable uncertainty and inconsistency in the

administration of justice. Where the statute expressly provides a

remedy of appeal, the aggrieved party must necessarily pursue

that appellate remedy in accordance with the procedure and

limitations prescribed. Conversely, in situations where the

legislature has deliberately curtailed the right of appeal and has

instead permitted a limited supervisory challenge to test the

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (12 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

legality, correctness, or propriety of an order, a revision may lie

only within those narrowly circumscribed parameters.

4.16. The judicial system cannot permit a conflation or substitution

of these distinct remedies, for each is conceived by the legislature

with a specific purpose and scope. The integrity of the legal

process depends upon faithful adherence to these distinctions. To

disregard them would be to unsettle the carefully balanced

framework of remedies envisaged by the statute. It must,

however, be acknowledged that in rare and exceptional situations

where the circumstances disclose a manifest abuse of the process

of law or a grave and palpable miscarriage of justice; the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court may justifiably be invoked.

Such recourse may be taken either through the inherent

jurisdiction preserved under Section 482 of the Code

(corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita) or by invoking the constitutional supervisory jurisdiction

vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India. These powers, however, are extraordinary in character

and are not intended to supplant the ordinary remedies provided

by statute. Their invocation must remain confined to those

exceptional situations where the statutory framework fails to

furnish an adequate remedy or where intervention becomes

imperative to prevent a palpable failure of justice.

4.17. The preservation of a clear and disciplined distinction

between statutory remedies and extraordinary jurisdictions is

therefore indispensable. Such discipline safeguards the structural

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (13 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

coherence of the judicial system, reinforces respect for legislative

intent, and ensures that the administration of justice proceeds

within the framework ordained by law rather than through the

inadvertent assumption of powers not sanctioned by statute.

5. This Court is constrained to hold that the learned Sessions

Judge and Additional Sessions Judge committed a manifest error

of jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the revision petition.

The order impugned herein, having been rendered in derogation of

the statutory mandate, cannot be sustained and is hereby set

aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions

Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to again

register the proceedings as a criminal appeal under Section 33 of

the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008. After issuing notice to both

parties and affording them a full and effective opportunity of

hearing, the appeal shall be decided afresh on its own merits,

strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any

observations made in the earlier revisional order.

5.1. It is expressly clarified that this Court has not examined the

legality, correctness, or propriety of the order passed by the

learned Nyayadhikari taking cognizance and issuing process. All

such questions are left open to be adjudicated by the appellate

court in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction.

5.2. The impugned order reveals that upon taking cognizance on

a private complaint, the learned Nyayadhikari issued a warrant of

arrest at the very inception. The jurisprudential guidance rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v.

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (14 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 1 SCC 561, unequivocally

emphasizes that issuance of a warrant in a complaint case, at the

first instance should be eschewed and that summons ought

ordinarily to be the rule, unless compelling circumstances warrant

a departure.

5.3. The criminal process must adhere to a graded and

proportionate approach. The power to issue a warrant is

undoubtedly available; however, its exercise must be supported by

cogent and compelling reasons. Mechanical or precipitous issuance

of a warrant in a complaint case, at the threshold stage militates

against established principles governing criminal procedure. The

matter pertains to an accusation exclusively triable by the Court of

Magistrate therefore, instead of issuing warrant of arrest at the

first instance, the learned Magistrate ought to have issued

summons.

5.4. Having regard to the aforesaid, and in order to secure the

ends of justice, this Court feels it apt to exercise inherent powers

vested in it and thus, it is ordered that the warrant of arrest

issued against the petitioner shall remain stayed during the

pendency of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The

petitioner shall, however, appear before the appellate court on the

date fixed and shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the

appeal.

5.5. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate

that subordinate courts must exercise vigilant circumspection in

matters pertaining to maintainability and jurisdiction. Where the

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9842] (15 of 15) [CRLW-600/2024]

legislature has delineated a specific remedy and forum, such

prescription must be scrupulously honoured. Entertaining a

revision where an appeal lies under Section 33 is contrary to the

statutory framework and cannot be countenanced.

6. With the aforesaid elaborate findings, observations, and

directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. All pending

applications, if any, including the stay application, also stand

disposed of accordingly.

(FARJAND ALI),J 10-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 06:34:22 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)