DINESH RAMSANEHI YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Counsel appearing for the parties have been heard at length in context with the annexures and the statements recorded during the course of investigation.

(2.) SHRI Thorat, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that this is the second round of battle in the High Court when the petitioners are challenging their indictment in the prosecution on frivolous and baseless allegations. He submitted that after the charge was framed against them they had filed a writ petition before the High Court bearing Criminal Writ Petition no. 328 of 1996 which was decided by the Single Bench of this Court on 11-7-1997. He pointed out that while deciding the said writ petition, the Single bench of this Court has directed the learned Special Judge to reconsider the application for discharge filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. (emphasis provided ). The Single Bench had permitted the parties to produce their documents of title. Shri Thorat submitted that when such were the directions, it was incumbent on the learned Special Judge to consider the documents produced by the petitioners in support of their contention of innocence and discharge from the said trial. Shri Thorat submitted that when number of documents were produced before the Court which were public documents. It was the duty of the learned Special Judge to scrutinize them, to assess them properly and to come to a conclusion that the petitioners are not to be prosecuted. He pointed out that the learned Judge after considering those documents concluded that for the purpose of occupation of the land admeasuring 4500 sq. mtrs. , the petitioners should have obtained the permission of competent authority and in the absence of that, their possession over the said piece of land cannot be treated to be lawful and, therefore, prime fade they committed offence punishable under section 3 (iv), (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for convenience ).

(3.) SHRI Thorat further pointed out the statement of original complainant smt. Janakibai Marya Bare in view of the F. I. R. lodged by her which has been recorded by Dindoshi Police Station in context with C. R. No. 33 of 1995 on 13-1-1995. Shri Thorat pointed out that in the said statement said Smt. Janakibai has alleged that one of the petitioners Ramsanehi Yadav has constructed his hut 10 years prior to 13-1-1995. That means in the month of january 1985 or so. At this juncture, Shri Thorat pointed out that the provisions of the Act came in force in the month of January 1990. Therefore, the said alleged act cannot be looked upon retrospectively in context with provisions of a penal act in relation to a criminal prosecution. Shri Thorat further pointed out that Janakibai has made the allegation in her F. I. R. that in the recent past Ramsanehi Yadav and his son Dinesh Yadav had constructed a latrine in the land in occupation of said Janakibai and her near relatives who happens to be members of Scheduled Tribes. But there is no mention of even the attempt of constructing a latrine on the said land when the panchanama was drawn in the presence of panch witnesses. Shri Thorat submitted that when the petitioners have positively and convincingly pointed out to the Court that they are in lawful occupation of the land which was 4500 sq. metres and the said act was prior to the date of coming in force of the provisions of the Act, the learned special Judge should have discharged them instead of framing a charge against them for proceeding further against them in context with the said prosecution.