MAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAN Singh was convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bulandshahr, under Sections 447 and 434, Indian P. C. and was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100/- under the first count and to two months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/-under the second count. It was further ordered that Har Prasad Sharma complainant will be delivered possession over the property from which he was wrongfully dispossessed by Man Singh. This order was passed under Section 456, Criminal P. C. of the new Code. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction under both the counts but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of its payment td one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 447, Indian P. C. and to a fine of Rs. 300/-and in default of its payment to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 434, Indian P. C. The order passed under Section 456, Criminal P. C. does not seem to have been interfered with.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Har Prasad Sharma, opposite party, is the owner of plot No. 800 (3 biswas 2 biswansi) situate in village Ichhawari, Police Station Debai, District Bulandshahr. He was in possession of this plot and got its demarcation done on 13-2-1972. On 12-7-1974 when he had gone to Meerut the revisionist and one Ram Swarup took forcible possession over the plot after demolishing mend which was fixed in the demarcation proceedings. They fixed hand pipe and also placed a Jhopari. On 15-71974 when he returned from Meerut he asked the revisionist and Ram Swarup to deliver possession of the plot. They promised to do so after sometime but did not actually place him in possession of the same. On 6-8-1974 he again asked them to hand over possession of the plot but the revisionist and Ram Swarup abused him and threatening him with dire consequences. On 28-8-1974, Har Prasad gave a notice to the revisionist and Ram Swarup as required by Section 441, I. P. C. as amended by the U. P. Act No. 31 of 1961 but Ram Swarup refused to take that notice and the revisionist gave a false reply. Therefore, on 20-9-1976 a complaint under Sections 434, 447, 427, 504 and 506, I. P. C. was filed against both the persons. Thereafter Ram Swarup entered into a compromise with the complainant and handed over possession of the property on which he had taken forcible possession and the case proceeded against the revisionist alone under Sections 434, 447, I. P. C.

(3.) THE revisionist admitted that demarcation of plot No. 800 was done by the Supervisor Kanoongo but he denied that he had demolished any Mend or taken forcible possession over any part of that plot. According to him he was in possession of the disputed land for more than eleven years and no Mend was actually fixed by the Qanungo. In support of his contention he had examined two witnesses, namely, Prem Singh (D. W. 1) and Rajvir Prasad (D. W. 2 ).