STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHERULAL DAGADULAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed the above appeals against the orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manmad, on October 28, 1967, in two criminal cases before him, both of which related to an incident which took place at about 7-80 p. m. on October 7, 1966 in Manmad. The first information in one case was given by one Zumberlal Rajmal Chajed and the first information in the other case was given by one Paras-mal Mesulal Jain relating to the said incident. As these two appeals relate to the same incident and involve a common question of law, they can be disposed of by a single judgment.

(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 238 of 1968 arises out of Criminal Case No. 778 of 1966 before the said Magistrate. A charge-sheet was filed before him on October 15, 1966 against the 7 respondents in that appeal, viz. , (1) Bherulal Dagdulal Jain, (2) Kantilal Dagdulal Bardiya, (3) Madanlal Panalal Bardiya, (4) Dharamchand Dagduram Bardiya, (5) Parasmal Bherulal Bardiya, (6) Balu Kondaji Karde, and (7) Shridhar Waman Paliwal. It was alleged in the said charge-sheet by the Police Sub-Inspector, Manmad City, that on October 7, 1966 at 7-30 p. m. , the 7 accused formed an unlawful assembly in an open street of Manmad City inasmuch as, as a result of a meeting of bank, they entertained a common object of beating the complainant Zumberlal Rajmal Chajed and witnesses Amarchand Babulal Chajed, Manakchand Rajmal Chajed and Motilal Rajmal Chajed and in pursuance of that common object, they voluntarily caused injuries to them with blows and kicks and with wooden pieces and bamboo sticks and also abused them and threatened to kill them and thereby committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manmad, issued process on perusal of the charge-sheet and made it returnable on October 29, 1966. On October 29, 1966, the accused were present in Court, but an application was made for adjournment and the case was adjourned to November 23, 1966. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time for various reasons till March 17; 1967, when the parties filed an application, Ex. 15, signed by the complainant Zumbarlal, the 7 accused persons and the witnesses who were alleged to have been hurt in the course of riot. This application was objected to on behalf of the prosecution on the ground that by law, partial compounding was not allowed and if the parties wanted withdrawal, they should move the District Magistrate in respect of the offences mentioned in the chargesheet. The Judicial Magistrate, however, passed the following order on that very day:

(3.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1948 also the charge-sheet was filed on October 15, 1956, against the 7 accused, viz. , (1) Amarchand Babulal Chajed, (2) Babulal Rajmal Chajed, (3) Zutnbarlal Rajmal Chajed, (4) Manakchand Rajmal Chajed, (5) Motilal Rajmal Chajed, (6) Bhaskar Shankar Nagare, (7) Sakharam Gopinath Darde. It may be noted that the accused Zumbarlal was the complainant in the other case. The accused Amarchand, Babulal, Manakchand, Motilal were cited as witnesses in the other case. It was alleged that these 7 accused en October 7/1966 at about 7-30 p. m. beat the complainant Parasmal and witnesses Kantilal Dagduram Jain and Bhesulal Dagduram Jain and caused them hurt and accused No. 1 entered, in the house of the complainant and committed trespass and all these offences were committed with a common object of the accused as a result of the meeting of the bank referred to above in the other case. It was also alleged that they threatened to kill the complainant and hence the accused had committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 451, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code. This case also took a parallel course to the other case and an application, Ex, 15 was filed on March 17, 1967 i. e. , on the same day on which Ex. 15 was filed in the other case and with the same contents signed by the complainant, the accused and the injured witnesses who were cited in the chargesheet. The application was opposed on the same grounds on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Magistrate on the very day passed an order as follows ;-