BHOJ RAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist Bhoj Raj, preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 215 of 1998, Jaisi Ram v. Bhoj Raj and Anr. whereby the judgment and order dated 27.6.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magistrate, Sikohabad in Complaint Case No. 144 of 1996, Jaisi Ram v. Bhojraj, thereby dismissing the complaint under Section 434, I.P.C. is set aside.

(2.) I have heard learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. No one has appeared on behalf of revisionist.

(3.) I have gone through the grounds of revision stating that the learned Magistrate had found on record that there were material contradictions between the statements of complainant Jaisi Ram and witness Puttu and, therefore, the revision was liable to be dismissed but the revision as per the impugned order has been wrongly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. There remained no reliable evidence available on record that the revisionist had broken the land mark of field and thrown away the mark (Mutthiya) alleged to have been fixed during the revenue inspection. As per order and direction of learned S.D.M., the proceedings of land mark was conducted and mark (Mutthiya) was fixed. Had there been any fact of breaking and throwing of the land mark by the revisionist, the complainant/Respondent Jaisi Ram certainly might have complained against the revisionist before S.D.M. The land mark of the complainant and the revisionist are adjacent to each other and there is no evidence of any type was collected by any agency as to whether the aforesaid land mark was broken and thrown by the revisionist. The revisionist neither committed mischief by destroying or making useless of any land mark fixed by the authority nor there is any reliable evidence in this regard against the revisionist available on record.