JAGAT RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application arises out of a prosecution under Sections 427 and 506, I. P. C. Sunehra brought a complaint against Jagat Raj and three others with these allegations. The complainant had sown brinjal crop in Ms plot. On 6-11-1952, the complainant noticed that the four accused had been damaging his brinjal crop. Jagat Raj and Bhawania accused were uprooting the crop and throwing it into the river. Mathura and Haria accused were ploughing the field. When the complainant protested, the four accused threatened to kill him. All the four accused pleaded not guilty, and said that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.

(2.) The case was originally on the file of a Tahsildar Magistrate. On 24-12-1952 he submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the effect that, he had no jurisdiction to try the case, as it fell under part I of Section 506, I. P. C. The Tahsildar probably meant that, the case fell under para (2) of Section 506. I. P. C., and so the case could not be tried by a second class Magistrate. On 27-12-1952 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate wrote to the Tahsildar that, as he had already framed charges, he had better continue the trial. Accordingly, the Tahsildar continued the trial. On 16-3-1953, he transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate of Hamirpur as suggested by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order dated 27-12-1952. The Judicial Magistrate questioned the accused whether he wanted a 'de novo' trial. The accused replied in the negative. The learned Judicial Magistrate thereupon heard arguments on behalf of the parties, and delivered judgment on 29-6-1953, convicting the four accused under Sections 427 and 506, I. P. C. Each accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment lor nine months under Section 427, I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 506, I. P. C. An appeal filed by these four persons was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Hamirpur. Jagat Raj and others have, therefore, come to this Court in revision.

(3.) It will be noticed that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not record evidence in the case. He acted upon the evidence recorded by the Tahsildar, and delivered judgment. It was urged on behalf of the applicants that, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was illegal.