JAG RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have gone through the judgment and order dated 15-10-1983 passed by Sri V.P. Mathur, District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1983. After examining the judgment throughly I am of the opinion that the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge now after a lapse of 17 years, for which this revision remained pending in this Court for hearing cannot be sustained.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were prosecuted for the offence under Section 198-A(2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short called as the 'Act'). The allegations made by the informant were that complainants were allotted 16 Biswas of land and the possession was also given to them after the allotment by the authorities concerned. They were in peaceful possession over it for a while. Later on the revisionists had not allowed their possession to continue. They dispossessed them. Some false litigations were also started by these reivisionists against them which they had won upto theCommissioner's level. On the application moved by the complainant to the revenue authorities on 26-9-1980. Naib Tehsildar, Pati Ram, again put them into possession over the allotted property with the help of police of P.S. Hastinapur. The Dolbandi was also done at the spot, but all the revisionists at about 9.00 a.m. on 15-10-1980, i.e. after about 20 days from the complainants being put in possession a second time again dispossessed them and entered into possession themselves over the allotted land. These allotments were made to these persons in order to give effect to the Government policy of providing land to the landless. The Legislature intended to ameliorate as large section of the landless society distributing surplus land to them. Therefore, the offence of the revisionists is, no doubt, serious in nature because it goes to thwart completely the legislative intent of the abovesaid scheme. It further caused serious damage to the establishment of socialist structure of the society towards which our Constitution has made serious endeavour.2A. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that this case was very badly conducted and still more badly decided by the trial Court. The reasons for the abovesaid opinion are that the basic evidence for the purposes of establishing the offence were not produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. Two persons, Ramu and Bhuniya, were allotted 16 Biswas each of land from plot No 98. Only one allotment order pertaining the Ramu was brought on record. The other order was not brought on record. Moreover the papers pertaining to putting in possession of the complainant at the first instance were not brought on record by the prosecution. Allotment order alone is not sufficient to establish their possession. The possession is a practical formality and has to be gone into by preparing record for the same. If the initial possession of the property in favour of these complainants and their subsequent dispossession is not proved on record, the claim of subsequent eviction of their will not be a proof of the fact that they had been in possession over the disputed property. Even the documentary evidence pertaining to the subsequent dispossession that took place in the presence of the lekhpal and the police force on 26-9-1980 has also not been brought on record. Lekhpal too was not produced in evidence to prove it. No one from amongst the police force was examined to prove that formality on 26-9-1980 was undertaken. No application, allegedly given by the two complainants to the revenue authorities for dispossessing the revisionists and putting them again in possession over the allotted property, was brought on record even. The last nail in the coffin was non examination of the Investigating Officer.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge hearing the appeal was of the opinion that some most relevant contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were elicited by the defence which for non production of the Investigating Officer remained unproved on record. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants, now revisionists, could not be sustained. He had allowed the appeal and reminded it back to the court of Judicial Magistrate for hearing it afresh after giving opportunity to the prosecution to produce all relevant evidence. The accused persons will also be afforded due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on the new evidence so produced. This order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 25-10-1983. If this revision could have been decided within a short span after its admission, even then order could not have been or may not have been sustained. But after a lapse of more than 17 years, in my opinion, it shall be a completely, futile exercise to dismiss this revision and sustain the impugned order. By this time most of the records for which this appeal was remanded back must have been weeded out and no documentary evidence will be available for the prosecution to produce in Court. Moreover, no case can be remanded back to allow the prosecution to fill up lacunas. The prosecution has not made any application before the appellate Court for any permission to produce the evidence. The appellate Court was entitled to record the evidence that it finds necessary for a just decision of the case. That exercise having not been undertaken by the learned Sessions Judge himself after such a long lapse of time, it shall be wholly unfair to allow this case to be remanded back for filling up lacunas that were deliberately left by the prosecution in this case. In all probability necessary formalities were not completed at all required for such a prosecution.