HEMANCHALSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Police challaned the five accused -appellants under sections 148, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code before the Special Court, established under section 12 of the Madhya Bharat Public Security Act of 1953. On trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused under section 325 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. and also under Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to varying terms of imprisonment. Against this decision the accused have filed Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1956 for their acquittal and the complainants have preferred revision No. 48 of 1956 for the enhancement of sentence. As the appeal and revision relate to the same matter I propose to dispose of them by a single judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that a party of Zamindars, consisting of Dilliram and others obtained a decree of eviction from the agricultural land against Himanchal Singh and others, who were the tenants. It is said that in the execution of this decree, the Zamindar party obtained possession of the disputed field on 1.6.1955. Curiously enough on the same day, Himanchal Singh and others (party of the tenants) also obtained an order, staying the execution of the decree, whereby the Zamindar party was restrained from taking possession of the field, The party of the tenants alleges that as a matter of fact no possession was obtained by the Zamindar party of the field in question.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge tried both the cases. In this case (it is a case challaned by the Police on the report of the Zamindars), the learned Special Judge framed charges under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149, 323 and 324 read with section 149, 302 read with section 34, and 323 and 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and, after recording evidence in the case he convicted the accused under Section 323 read with Section 149 and under section 323 read with section 149 I.P.C. In the appeal that is filed against this decision, two submissions are made: one that the Special Judge was not competent to try offences under sections 148 and 149 and that in convicting the accused under these sections he acted without jurisdiction. Two, that in coming to a decision, the trial Court has freely made use of the evidence which he recorded in the cross -case, and my attention is pointedly drawn to a passage of the judgment on page 8 in which he has discussed and referred to the evidence of the cross -case.