STATE OF M P Vs. GANGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents by judgment dated 14-9-1979 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 235 of 1978.

(2.) The prosecution case was that complainant Gopal (P.W. 2) and Bidambadhar (P.W. 3) were employees in the Forest Department and were going in connection with Tendu Patta work to village Deogaon. On their way they found two carts coming from the opposite direction loaded with one .Jog each of Sarai. The respondents were alleged to be on those carts. They stopped the carts and started making inquiries. On this respondent Ganga Ram abused and assaulted with his Tangia. Accused Harihar Prashad is said to have encouraged assault by saying MARO SALE KO.' On this Bidambadhar and Gopal ran away from the place. Gopal fell in a ditch and suffered some injuries and a report was lodged in Police Station, Tamnar and ultimatelya case under sections 147, 181, 352, 333 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code was filed before the, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh against the respondentsT. Learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 27-7-78 found ingredients of charge under section 332, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, charge under section 332, Indian Penal Code framed and was read over to respondents, who have denied committed any offence. The charge related to obstructing complainant Gopal, a public servant (Forest, Watcher) from performing his duties. During the trial Gopal was examined as P.W. 2. He admitted that on the date of incident he was not employed in the Forest Department he also admitted that he was not appointed on the post: of Forest Watcher. In cross-examination he also admitted that he had fallen in a ditch and received injuries. On the basis of the evidence of the complainant the learned Judicial Magistrate found that no offence under section 332, - Indian Penal Code had been proved and the appellants were, therefore, acquitted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the original challan was not only under sections 332, Indian Penal Code but under other sections also and hence respondent should have been tried under all those sections. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. The challan was presented on 12-7-1978. On 27.7-1978 the argument of both the sides were heard and charge under section 332; Indian Penal Code was only framed. In case the State was aggrieved by the order framing the charge they should have challenged the same. Since ingredients of other offences were not explained to the respondents while explaining the charge it is not open to the appellant State to seek their convictions under other sections.