KANBI BECHAR LALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants who were charged under sections 147 447 426 and 506 Indian Penal Code were discharged by the learned Magistrate. In revision the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and passed an order under sec. 436 Cri. P. Code directing further inquiry.

(2.) In revision it is contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in doing so. It is also urged that it is not competent to order an inquiry in a case in which a trial had already been commenced. I reject both these contentions for the following reasons.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the learned Magistrate has not discussed the evidence in a proper manner and rejected it after a superficial discussion. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to three reasons on which the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate was based. The learned Sessions Judge has given detailed reasons for observing that these reasons are superficial. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the learned Magistrate had not considered a part of the evidence. For these reasons the learned Sessions Judge observed that the order of the learned Magistrate was based on flimsy and superficial considerations and is manifestly unreasonable perverse and absurd. After going through para 7 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge I am not prepared to say that there was no justification for these observations made by the learned Sessions Judge. There was prosecution evidence that a hedge was cut that a gate was broken and that a neem tree was also cut and that the total damage caused to the complainant was to the extent of Rs. 500.00. Such acts cannot if proved be said to be bonafide acts done in the bonafide exercise of a right of way. I am therefore not prepared to set aside in revision the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.