KARNAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Manish Datt, learned counsel for applicant. Ms. Alka Pandya, learned G.A. for the State. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) SHRI Datt appearing for the applicant assails the impugned order whereby the learned Special Judge, Hoshangabad, has framed charges under sections 294 and 506 and has discharged the applicant from offence under section 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to Mr. Datt, on the basis of materials on record, if the applicant/accused has been discharged in respect of the charge under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he could not have been proceeded against, again on that basis, under sections 294 and 506, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Datt submits that the complainant, a member of SC/ST community, was also a member of Panchayat and the quarrel is said to have originated in hot exchange of words over some financial matter concerning a social welfare scheme. Mr. Datt further submits that the class of society to which the applicant and the complainant, belonged does not mind uttering abuses or words of threat because such words are not taken seriously in their society. Mr. Datt to substantiate his submission has placed reliance on judgments of this Court. In the case of Dalsingh v. State of M.P., 1957 MPLJ 21 Note No. 62, this Court sitting in criminal revision quashed the charges under section 294 by holding as under :

(3.) MS . Alka Pandya, learned G.A. for the State, opposing the submissions of Mr. Datt contended that from the materials collected during investigation like the statements of other members of the Panchayat, who were present on the scene of occurrence, a prima-facie case for putting the applicant to trial under the sections charged with, is made out. Ms. Pandya in support of her submissions cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court namely, Ranjit D. Udeshi v. The State of Maharashtra, 1966 MPLJ 273 (SC) : AIR 1965 SC 881, which is rendered in the context of section 292 and it says that the prosecution need not prove knowledge of obscenity on part of accused.