BACHAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated August 25, 1976 passed by II Additional Ses ­sions Judge Bijnor, confirming the con ­viction and sentences recorded against the applicants under Section 147, I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on July 3, 1975, at about 6 P.M., the cattle of the applicants strayed into the field of the complainant and caused damage to the crop standing therein and when the complainant tried to take them to the cattle pond, they beat him and frus ­trated his attempt in taking the cattle to the cattle pond. The complainant reported the matter to the police, but the police took no action on the report made by him. Accordingly, he filed a complaint against the applicants under Sections 323 324, 427, I.P.C. and 24 Cattle Trespass Act.

(3.) THE trial court found no case made out against the applicants under Sec ­tions 323, 324, 427, I.P.C. and 24, Cattle Trespass Act and accordingly it acquitt ­ed them of the charges under these heads. It, however, found them guilty of rioting and sentenced them to three months' R.I. under Section 147. I.P.C. Aggrieved, the applicants went up in appeal; the appellate court dismissed their appeal but set aside the sentences of imprisonment and instead imposed a fine of Rs. 100/ - on each one of them. It is one of those rare cases in which the accused have been acquitted of the substantive offences and yet they have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. In my opinion, their conviction under Section 147, I.P.C. was legally untenable after they had been acquit ­ted of the substantive offences. Sec ­tion 147, I.P.C reads: