STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHARAT MARUTI CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra and raises an issue of some significance. Respondent No. 1, who was the original accused, though served, has not appeared at the time of the hearing, nor has any appearance been filed on his behalf. As far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, he is an Advocate who was at the relevant time working as a Court Receiver and, therefore, he is expected to appear at the hearing of the appeal. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Prosecution are as follows :---

(2.) THE present respondent No. 2, Shri M. S. Patil, who is an Advocate, had been appointed as Court Receiver by an Order of the Civil Court, Pandharpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 368 of 1975 to the extent of 1 Acre and 15 Gunthas of land. It appears that there was a certain sugarcane crop on the sold land and that under the orders of the Court the sugarcane in question was to be said through public auction. The Court Receiver followed the requisite procedure of issuing public notices, etc. , and proceeded to the place on 19-11-1978 to hold a public auction when to his surprise he found that the original accused, Bharat Maruti Chavan, along with his brother and father was already there and that he was in the process of cutting the sugarcane and taking it away in a truck. When the Court Receiver tried to stop him, he intimidated and threatened the Court Receiver. He did not allow the Court Receiver to carry out the public auction and ultimately removed the sugarcane in question. On a complaint being lodged by the Court Receiver, Shri. M. S. Patil, the accused came to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 379, 353, 504 as also section 506, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence of the Court Receiver which significantly enough has not been challenged at all; even with regard to the version of what had transpired on that particular day, there has been no cross-examination whatsoever by the accused. Against this conviction the accused filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, being Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1982. The learned Additional Sessions Judge substantially allowed the appeal in so far as except for the conviction under section 506, Part I of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction under the remaining heads of charge was set aside and, furthermore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the amount of compensation that was directed to be paid to the Court Receiver from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 300/ -. It is against this order that the present criminal appeal has been filed.

(3.) MRS. Keluskar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has read the evidence of the Court Receiver, who is the only witness, and has also drawn my attention to the relevant part of the record. It is her submission that in the present case the conviction of the accused on all counts by the learned Judicial Magistrate was fully justified, both on facts and in law. She was critical of the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has unfortunately interfered with what was otherwise a sound and correct judgment of the trial Court. I am fully in agreement with the submissions canvassed by Mrs. Keluskar, which is to the effect that this is a case involving an issue of propriety. The Court Receiver himself an Advocate was acting as an officer of the Court and the accused not only obstructed him in the course of his duties but also went to the extent of intimidating him and threatening him. The accused also forcibly removed the sugarcane in question. An ingenuous argument was advanced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, namely, that the accused was an agent of the Court Receiver and therefore, cannot be said to have removed the sugarcane from the possession of the Court Receiver. There is absolutely no substance in an argument of this type and the order upholding such a submission would be nothing short of perversity. The accused was agent of the Court Receiver to the limited extent of looking after the property and to that extent he has not been charged with having committed tresspass on the property. However, as far as the sugarcane crop was concerned, it cannot be said that it belonged to the accused because the Court Orders had been passed for the sale of that sugarcane. Under the circumstances the removal of the sugarcane by the accused was clearly an act punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. His obstruction to the Court Receiver constituted an offence punishable under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. In so far as he resorted to violence and breach of peace, he was rightly convicted under section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate had rightly exercised his discretion with regard to the quantum of compensation and the interference by the Appeal Court, i. e. , the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was wholly unwarranted. Consequently, the appellate order is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the trial Magistrate is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1982 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur in Criminal Case No. 234 of 1979 is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.