SHANTABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Application is filed against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, confirming the conviction of the petitioner under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the complainant Mukund Krishna Dhule and his cousin uncle Balu Vithu Dhule, have lands in village Dahisar, Taluka Basscin, district Thana, Petitioner No. 1 Shantabai was cultivating lands of Balu Vithu Dhule for a long time. During the agricultural season of the year 1977, Balu Dhule gave these lands to the complainant Mukund Krishna Dhule for cultivation. This was not liked by Shantabai w/o Mankya Patil. On 17th July 1977 when the complainant was carrying out agricultural operations with the help of labourers. Shantabai and Govind Hareshwar Patil, i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 2. went to the land, petitioner No. 2 Govind rushed to the complainant Mukund pointed out an umbrella to him and said to him "Mahardya, do not speak more, I will cut you." Petitioner No. 1 Shantabai, also said to the complainant, "This Mahardi of Dahisar had gone too high (has become arrogant) and each one of them should be killed". Thereafter the complainant went to the Police Patil at about 7-0 p.m. the same day. On 18th July 1977 the complainant went to a social worker by name Haribhau Laxman Jadhav of village Kanhor and gave the report written by the Police Patil on the previous day to him. On that basis a complaint was written by Haribhau Jadhav. Then the complainant went to the Police station at Virar and filed the complaint. On the basis of these allegations the accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, simpliciter as also with the aid of S. 34 I.P.C. They were also prosecuted for the offence punishable under S. 504 read with S. 34 as well as S. 506 I.P.C. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioners of the offences punishable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act as also under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. He however, convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, or in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days. Against this order of conviction and sentence the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court at Thane. The said appeal was heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, who ultimately dismissed it. Against this order, the petitioners have preferred the present Revision Application.

(3.) Initially the matter was placed before the single Judge of this Court, Rele, J. In support of the argument advanced before the learned single Judge, the learned, counsel appearing for the accused, placed reliance upon the decision of Kanade, J., in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (1980 Mah LJ 833) : (1981 Cri LJ 387) (Bom). As the learned Judge found that the question raised was an important one, he referred the present Revision Petition to the Division Bench. This is how the matter has some to be placed before us.