RAM SWARUP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four criminal revisions. Criminal Revision No. 2064 of 1972 is by Ram Swarup, Criminal Revision No. 2065 of 1972 is by Pancham, Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 1972 is by Hukma and Criminal Revision No. 2067 of 1977 is by Shodan. As they involve common question of law they have been heard together.

(2.) A complaint was made by Ram Swarup son of Parsadi, member of the Land Management Committee Mat Raja, Police Station Surir in the district of Mathura against Ram Swarup alias Kanavajia alleging that the latter had trespassed into 16 acres of land pertaining to plots Nos. 124 and 125 belonging to Gaon Sabha Mat Raja. The Tahsildar passed an order for his ejectment on 22nd May 1970. A notice was also given to him on 6lh October, 1971 but he did not comply with it and thereby he committed an offence under section 447 I.P.C. A similar complaint was filed againt Pancham by Ram Swarup son of Parasadi that he had trespassed into 16 acres of land belonging to the Gaon Sabha Mat Raja pertaining to plots Nos. 124 and 125. An order was passed against him for ejectment on 26th June 1970 by the Tahsildar and a notice was served on him on 6th October 1971. He having not vacated the land after the service of notice had committed an offence under section 447 I.P.C.

(3.) THE four applicants were prosecuted in the court of the Magistrate, Ist Class, Mathura. They pleaded not guilty. They denied that they had committed trespass over the land in dispute. They pleaded that they had been implicated falsely. The trial court convicted each of the applicants for an offence under scction 447 I.P.C. Ram Swarup was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 125.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. Pancham was also convicted for an offence under section 447 I. P. C. and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 125.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. Hukma and Shodan were also convicted for an offence under section 447 I. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine each of them was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. Aggrieved against the Judgment of the trial court the applicants filed appeal against their conviction and sentenced and their appeals were dismissed hence these four revisions. In these revisions learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the conviction of the applicants for ant offence under section 447 f. P. C. was alleged. The trial court convicted the applicants of trespass as defined in section 447 l. P. C. as amended by the Criminal Laws (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1961 which provides as foliow :