RAMDHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the complainant under Section 482 CrPC for re-calling my order dated 8-S-79 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1480 of 1977.

(2.) THE complainant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) filed a complaint against opposite-parties under Section 379 IPC mentioning therein that he had raised Gehun and Lehsun crop in plots nos. 216 and 220 in village Sirsa and the opposite parties dishonestly and wrongfully cut the same and removed it to their house. THE opposite-parties denied the charge made against them. THE trial court held that the opposite parties had committed theft of the Gehun and Lehsun crop belonging to the applicant and it, therefore, convicted them under Section 379 IPC and sentenced them to three months' R. I. each and a fine of Rs. 150/-. Aggrieved they went up in appeal, but in vain. THEy then came up in revision (Criminal Revision No. 1480 of 1977) to (this Court, and at the time of hearing assailed the correctness of the orders passed by the courts below. I heard this revision on 8 -5-79 and allowed it. While allowing the revision I remarked that a bona fide dispute in regard to the ownership of plots nos. 216 and 220 had been going on between the parties and each side claimed to be in possession of these plots to the exclusion of the other. And it was in this background that the opposite-parties had cut the Gehun and Lehsun crop standing on plots nos. 216 and 220. My view was that as the opposite parties had cut the Gehun and Lehsun crop in assertion of a contested claim of right, they cannot be said to have committed theft of the same when they cut it and removed it to their house.

(3.) THE learned counsel contended that the words "other person" used in the above sub-clause should include the complainant also, and, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of this Court to have given an opportunity to the applicant of being heard. 1 have given my anxious consideration to this submission of the learned counsel and my view is that the words "other person" should not include the complainant. THE ''other person" should be someone similarly placed like the accused. I say so because it is only an accused or a person placed like him, who can put up a 'defence. This 'defence' he can put up either personally or through a pleader. THEre can be no question of a complainant putting up a defence in a case started by him.