K RAM REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 57/93 by the Sessions judge, Karimnagar, remanding the case to the trial Court with a direction to conduct fresh trial while setting aside conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No. 111 /90 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpalli.

(2.) Fact sculminatingin this revision briefly stated are these:-Petitioners are residents of Dharmaram village. P.Ws. 1 to 4 are residents of Satharam village, adjoining Dharmaram. The lands of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others of Satharam village are irrigated by the water of the two tanks of their village. The source of water for the two tanks is 'Mattu Kalva' which originates at Dharmaram. The petitioners and other villagers of Dharmaram village were cross-bunding 'Mattu Kalva', a rivulet, and irrigating their lands by lift irrigation using oil engines resulting in drying up of the source of water to the two tanks of Satharam. Aggrieved by this action of the petitioners and other villagers of Dharmaram, the owners of the lands under the two tanks of the Satharam made complaints to revenue and police authorities during the year 1986. There was some mediation between the villagers, and petitioners 2 to 8 and others executed at P-4 agreement on 2-10-87 not to instal oil engines and dig wells at a distane of 11 yards from the rivulet. Contrary to the agreement, the petitioners in the year 1989 began to use water of the rivulet by installing oil engines depriving the source of the water to the two tanks of Satharam. Thereupon, P.W.1 Sarpanch of Satharam, gave Ex.P-1 report to S.1. of police, Mallapur on 8-3-90, who registered a case in Cr.No. 12/90 under Section 430, IPC and after investigation of the case, laid charge-sheet against the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners were tried for the offence punishable under Section 430, IPC The plea of the petitioners was one of denial. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioners to one year S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. On appeal by the petitioners, the appellate Court set aside the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioners, but remanded the case for fresh trial. The petitioners questioned the said remand order in this revision.