STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMJI RAMCHANDRA ROKADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Maharashtra by this revision Application challenges the order of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar, in Criminal Case No, 533 of 1971 holding guilty accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences charged but giving them benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. According to the State of Maharashtra, such a lenient view should not have been taken by the learned Magistrate considering the nature of the evidence and the character of the offence. It appears that this Court, while granting the rule, issued rule so far as Accused No. 1 Ramaji and his another son Laxman, but rejected the request of the State so far as accused No. 3 was concerned who was another son of accused No. 1,

(2.) THE facts in brief are as under: On 16th of June 1971, Police Constable Magar, who is a complainant, was on Bazar Duty at village Dongaon in Mehkar taluq of District Buldana. At about S p. m. he saw many persons running towards the direction of Rest House. He felt curious. Therefore, he also thought of going to see what was going on in the Rest House. When he went in the compound of the Rest House, he saw that Laxman Go-vinda, who is examined as P. W. 1 at the trial, was being beaten by four accused persons. Accused No. 1 Ramaji is a Cook. Accused 'nos. 2 and 3 are his sons and accused No. 4 is his wife, who was acquitted in the trial Court because her name did not transpire in the investigation though she was made an accused. When a person was assaulted by three persons, especially the servants employed in the Rest House, the Constable thought his duty to restore peace and to rescue Laxman Govinda. It appears that Laxman Govinda and other labourers, who were employed by the B. and C. department for work had come to the Rest House because they are paid their wages at Dongaon on the weekly bazar day. P. W. Laxman was one of them and some dispute had started between Laxman on one hand and the Khansama (Accused No. 1) on the other hand. It appears, according to the version given by the Khansama, that is, accused No. 1 Ramaji, that this Laxman was in the habit of smoking Chilim. Drinking water was kept in an earthen pot. A cloth used for the Chilim was put in that drinking water and the drinking water was spoiled by Laxman. Accused No. 1 got enraged and asked him to leave the Rest House premises. It appears, according to the version of accused No. 1, that Laxman was drunk and when Laxman started abusing and broke the glass of the door of the Rest House, scuffle started between accused No. 1 on one hand and this Laxman. At this moment Dashrath Magar came and intervened. According to the version of Dashrath Magar, when he intervened, the four accused started assaulting him. They gave him fist blows, kicks, abused him and asked him who he was to intervene in their quarrel, though he was in a police uniform. According to the version of accused No. 1, when the incident was going on and constable Magar came there, Magar intervened but started abusing him filthily. He also beat him (accused No. 1) with a cane. Thereafter he filed a report at Police Station, Mehkar. Similarly, Magar lodged his report (Ex. 15) against the accused at the police station pursuant to which investigation was made and trial against accused was proceeded in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar.

(3.) AT the trial a charge was framed against the four accused that on 16th of June 1971 at about 3 p. m. at Dongaon in the compound of the Dak-bungalow they voluntarily obstructed constable Dashrath, a public servant, in the discharge of his public functions. They were charged under Section 186 as well as under Section 353 and in the alternative a charge under Section 353 read with Section 34 was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the trial proceeded. The learned Judge on appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code having been committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3, i. e. the Khansama and his two sons. However, the learned Judge felt that this was a case where provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be used and instead of sentencing accused Nos. 1 to 3 at once to punishment they be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on the condition that each of them exe-' cutes a bond of Rs. 500/- with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meanwhile to keep peace and be of good behaviour.