LAWS(ALL)-1952-5-2

RAM NATH Vs. STATE

Decided On May 23, 1952
RAM NATH Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Mathura Kahar filed a complaint against Ram Nath Bhurji, his wife Shrimati Seeta, and pyarey, Barsati and Kisnori servants of Ram Nath, Mathura belongs to Azamgarh District and came to Lucknow about 4 or 5 years ago and got employed in the shop of Ram-nath at kaiserbagh. It is alleged that one year previous to the alleged incident, he opened his own private business and constructed a shop close to Jai Hind Cinema on the Bisheshwar Nath Road. The case of Mathura was that the plot of land on which his shop was built was acquired by him through Ramnath, who fraudulently got the lease executed in his own name. According to his allegations, on 25-4-1951, at about 11 A. M. all the five persons mentioned above formed an unlawful assembly for the purpose of dispossessing him. They went to his shop, beat him and his brother Ramai and took forcible possession of his shop.

(2.) THE defence of the accused was that the shop belonged to them, that the rent receipts of the shop were in the name of Ramnath and they were asserting their own rights in bona fide manner and were not guiity of any offence.

(3.) THE story narrated by the complainant P. W. 1 Mathura was corroborated by the independent evidence of reliable persons. The names of witnesses who corroborated him are Shri Lati Bhusan (P. W. 2), Munney (P. W. 3), Mrs. R. Sollose (P. W. 4), Shri T. R. Joseph (P. W. 5), Maiku Laj (P. W. 6) and Ismail (P. W. 7 ). The evidence of these witnesses has been believed by both the courts and the concurrent findings given by them are that Mathura was in peaceful possession of the shop, that on the day in question the applicants formed an unlawful assembly, went to the shop and took forcible possession of it. In view of the said findings the applicants have been convicted under Sections 147 and 448, I. P. C. Under Section 147, I. P. C. applicant No. 1 has been ordered to undergo three months' R. I. and under Section 448, I. P. C. he has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- only. The remaining applicants were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/each under Section 147, I. P. C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each under Section 448, I. P. C.