MANGALBHAI DEVABHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner-original informant under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') challenging the judgment and acquittal order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Mehsana in Criminal Case No.2450/95 under which the learned Magistrate passed an order acquitting the contesting respondents no.2,3,4 and 5 herein from offences punishable under section 161 and 162 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. The case of the petitioner as original informant before the trial court was that the original informant as well as the contesting respondents no. 2,3, and 5 belonging to village Rampura in Mehsana Taluka in Mehsana District. The present petitioner has got his agricultural land situated in the said village. According to the case of the present petitioner, the incident took place on 15.11.1994. At that time the petitioner along with his brother had gone to take a round of his agricultural land and he had found that certain cattles were found to be grazing in his field and, therefore, the petitioner made efforts to see that the custody of those cattles is taken. However, as per the case of the petitioner, the contesting respondents prevented him from doing so. That on account of the aforesaid incident, the petitioner. as per his case, sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.1500.00. Therefore, FIR was filed on 16.4.1994 before Santhal police station for the said offence. The Investigating Officer undertook investigation and submitted charge-sheet before the learned JMFC, Mehsana on 4.4.1995 in respect of the aforesaid offence against the contesting respondents no.2,3,4 and 5. Learned Magistrate to whom the matter was transferred, supplied copies of police investigating papers to the contesting respondents. The plea was recorded and the contesting respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge. The evidence was recorded and further statements of contesting respondent were recorded under section 313 of the Code. However, the contesting respondents did not examine any witness. The arguments were heard and on conclusion, the learned Magistrate pronounced judgment on 30.6.1999 acquitting respondents no.2,3,4 and 5 of the aforesaid offence.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and acquittal order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has preferred this revision before this court. It has been mainly contended here that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence and has committed illegality in acquitting the present respondents no.2,3,4, and 5. That the judgment and acquittal order are illegal and erroneous and deserve to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner therefore, prays that the revision be allowed and the judgment and acquittal order passed by the learned Magistrate be quashed and set aside and the present contesting respondents no.2,3,4 and 5 be punished for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) I have heard Mr Pankaj Soni, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr K G Sheth, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr Ketan Shah, learned Advocate appearing for respondents no.2,3,4 and 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken me though the judgment of the trial court. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is also his argument before this court to the effect that the cattles of contesting respondents were found grazing in the field of the petitioner and though panchnama has supported the evidence of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality in not relying upon the evidence of the said witnesses and, therefore, the acquittal order is illegal. As said above, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has prayed that this revision be allowed and the present contesting respondents no.2,3,4 and 5 may be punished and convicted for offence punishable under sections 161 and 162 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and to sentence them in accordance with law.