STATE OF MYSORE Vs. NARSAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) Rajsekhar, the complainant, is a resident of Rampur Village. Manvi Taluka, Raichur District, and the accused persons are the residents of the Hokrani Village, situated in the same taluk. Harijans of Rampur Village, including Rajsekhar (who has been examined in the case as PW 1) were allotted 6 plots in S. No. 197, situated in Hokrani Village. Including the complainant, Raisekhar, 3 more persons were allotted these 6 plots. S. No. 197 in Hokrani Village is a gairan land and the plots which were allotted to the complainant and the other persons numbering 3 are situated in that survey number. It was said that on 26th October, 1963, possession of the allotted plots had been delivered to the allottees. The complainant, Rajsekhar, lodged a complaint alleging that on 13th November, 1963, when the complainant and 7 others went to the disputed land to cultivate the same, the respondents forcibly entered into the land, unvoked the bullocks and obstructed the complainant from cultivating the land. On the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint lodged before the police, the latter submitted a charge-sheet before the First Class Magistrate, Manvi, under Sections 147, 447, 504 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused persons under Section 147 and Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and discharged them of the remaining offences of which they had been charged with. On the completion of the trial, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code namely, trespass is not established beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioners (accused) by the prosecution evidence and acquitted them of the offences. He however, convicted them under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 16 days. The petitioner went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, Raichur, against the order of the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference to this Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order of conviction made by the Magistrate.

(3.) Mr. Hego, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the Sessions Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that omissions and commissions which are alleged to have been made by the Magistrate, vitiated the proceedings. His main grievance was that there was no warrant on the material on record for the Sessions Judge to come to that conclusion. His second argument was that the Sessions Judge has assessed and appreciated the evidence in detail as if he was sitting in an appellate court. In revision, he was not competent to consider the pros and cons of the evidence and evaluate the same in detail. According to him there were no circumstances which would justify the Sessions Judge to probe into the evidence Mr. Murlidhara Rao, the learned Advocate for the Respondents centered his argument solely on the ground that under the circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the subsequent events that had taken place, the Sessions Judge was justified in his order recommending the acquittal. He did not advance any argument with regard to the contention made on behalf of the State in respect of the points of law which the Sessions Judge thought on the basis of which the proceeding were vitiated.