STATE Vs. SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State Government against the acquittal of the respondents on charges under Ss. 148 and 325 I. P. C. They were convicted by the trial Court on both these charges and they were each sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 148, I. P. C., and three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75/- under Section 325, I. P. C. They appealed against their conviction and sentence which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, who set aside their conviction and sentence.

(2.) It appears that Smt. Mantahari was the owner of certain plots. She executed a lease on 21-6-1946 in favour of the respondents Shanker and Asa who got possession over the plots. The rival party Balwant and Hari did not like the lease rights granted by Smt. Manbhari with the result that there was civil & criminal litigation between them on one side and Shanker and Asa on the other. It may be mentioned here that in this litigation Smt. Manbhari supported the respondents, it appears that in the civil suit the issue on the question of pendency was remitted to the revenue court and the same was decided in favour of the respondents. Later on Balwant started proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., on 19-3-1949 against the respondents Shanker and Asa. Smt. Manbhari was no party to this proceeding. An application was made on the allegation that the rabi crop standing in the plots in dispute in 1356F had been raised by Balwant as a sub-tenant of Smt. Manbhari and that Shanker and Asa were trying to take forcible possession of the land and the crop. It was prayed that Shanker and Asa might be forbidden from interfering with his possession. The learned Magistrate called for a report from the Station Officer and directed him to attach the crop if he found any apprehension of the breach of the peace. The Station Officer reported that there was some dispute between the parties and he made an attachment of the crop of 135GP. On receipt of the report from the Station Officer the learned Magistrate ordered the parties to file their written statements. In the meantime the Kharif crop of 1356F also came into existence and so Balwant made another application stating that the opposite parties were threatening to remove the said crop and that there was an apprehension of the breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate again passed an order calling upon the Station Officer to inquire into the matter and to attach this crop also if he found that there was any apprehension of the breach of the peace. Both the parties filed their written statements and produced their evidence. The learned Magistrate was unable to come to any definite decision as to which party was in possession of the disputed plots and the crops in them on the relevant dates and he, therefore, ordered that the property would remain attached under Section 146 (1), Criminal P. C., to be released in favour of the party declared in rightful possession by a competent court. This order was passed on 25-2-1950. On 8-9-1951, Smt. Manbhari made an application to the Magistrate that she was a tenant of the land in suit and was entitled to have the sale proceeds of the crop in deposit in the treasury and also possession over the land. The learned Magistrate passed an ex parte order on 28-11-1951 ordering that the property be released in her favour. In pursuance of this order she obtained possession over the disputed plots. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the morning of 2-7-1952 she went to the disputed plots to get them ploughed and cultivated when the accused armed with lathis and spears arrived there and asked her not to cultivate the plots as they belonged to them. It is further alleged that when Smt. Manbhari said that she had obtained possession over the plots and was entitled to cultivate them the accused started beating her and her daughter Smt. chhoti who had also come there with meals. It is further alleged that in the meantime the complainant and his brother Balwant also reached there on hearing the noise and tried to rescue Smt. Manbhari and her daughter and they too were beaten.

(3.) The defence of the accused was that the plots belonged to them & that they were entitled to beat Smt. Manbhari and her daughter and the injured persons in their right of defence of property. They denied the alleged beating.