DINESH RAMSANEHI YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 2-3-1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay in Misc. Application No. 362/95 in S. C. S. T. Spl. No. 6/95 whereby the application made by the petitioners to discharge them has been rejected by the learned Special Judge. The petitioners were charged by the police under section 3 (1) (iv) and 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the Act ). The charge against the petitioners were that they encroached upon the Survey No. 699, at Kanyacha Pada, Goregaon/mulund, Link Road at Malad (East), Bombay 400 097. It is alleged that this land belongs to the complainant (1) Janakibai Murya Bare, (2) Mali Rama Bara (4) Sita Rama Chavan (3) Ziparibai Dhakat Shede (4) Girija Rama Tak (5) Ladalobai Gudya Bhujad (deceased) who claim to be the members of the S. C. /s. T. community. The learned Special Judge charged the petitioners on the allegations that they encroached upon the property and therefore, committed an offence under section 3 (1) (iv) and 3 (1) (v) of Act.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned O. P. P for the State. Mr. Thorat, the learned Counsel for petitioners argued that the 1st petitioner is discharged from army and he was in occupation of the land of City Survey No. 699 admeasuring 2,400 Sq. Mts. of land taken on lease on various occasion from 1969 to 1973. However, the learned Special Judge, relying upon the extract produced by the police, has rejected the claim of the petitioners. While rejecting the claim of the petitioners, it appears from the order that the learned Judge did not go into the details of the land enabling him to identify the land claimed by the petitioner and the land alleged to have been dispossessed from the complainant. I feel that in the nature of the disputes raised by and between the parties, it was absolutely necessary for the learned Special Judge to examine the title deed produced by the petitioners as well as the complainant before framing charge. The learned Special Judge had arrived at the prima facie finding without examination of documents of title produced by the parties. Without doing so, the learned Special Judge has committed serious error and dismissed the application for discharge. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the order of the learned Special Judge is liable to be set aside and is directed to re-consider the application for discharge filed by the petitioners afresh and pass appropriate orders. Parties are allowed to move before the learned Special Judge to take fresh decision in the matter and notice be issued to the parties to produce their document of title of the respective parties and the matter may be decided according to law. Revision allowed.