KAMALSINGH SITALSING Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by the five petitioners who were charged before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sixth Court Ahmedabad for offences under secs. 341 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted under sec. 341 and sec. 504 I.P.C. and accused No. 5 was convicted under secs. 341 and 504 read with sec. 114 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to suffer S. I. for 7 days; accused Nos. 2 3 and 4 were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.00 in default to suffer S. I. for 5 days for the offence under sec. 341 I. P. C. and accused No. 5 was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.00 in default to suffer S. I. for 5 days under sec. 341 read with sec. 114 I. P.C. No seperate sentences were passed against any of the accused under sec. 504 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate also passed an order under sec. 522(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against accused No I to hand over the possession of the premises in dispute to the complainant Ramnandan Ramharakh. Against this order of conviction and sentence as well as the order under sec. 522(1) Gr. P.C. there was a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad who confirmed both the orders of conviction and sentence as well as the order under sec. 522(1) Cr. P C. and dismissed the revision application. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge that the present revision application has been filed.

(2.) In this revision application so far as the question of conviction and sentence is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. D. K. Shah has not pressed this question before this Court as the same is a pure question of fact and depends on the appreciation of evidence. The conviction and sentence on the petitioners will therefore stand. Mr. Shah has strongly contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under sec. 522(1) is incorrect illegal and erroneous and not justified on the facts of this case and that therefore it should be set aside.

(3.) The brief facts leading to this dispute are as follows: