KESO SAHU Vs. SALIGRAM SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners stand convicted under Section 341, I. P. C., and each of them has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 30/ -; in default to undergo R. I. for one month.

(2.) THE complainant's case against the petitioners in short is that the complainant is a retail dealer of rice and he had two shops, one at Nuagan and another at Suajore. On 2.5.1973 he received 27 quintals of rice to be sold on control price from the F. C. I. godown at Nuagan. On 5.5.1973 very early in the morning, by about 4 A. M., the complainant was transporting 11 quintals of rice in 12 bags in two buffalo -carts through Baisakhu Bhokta (P.W. 3) from his Nuagan shop to his shop at Suajore. When the said bags of rice were being taken to Suajore from Nuagan, the petitioners armed with lathis surrounded the carts and the cartmen, did not allow them to proceed towards Suajore and wanted to take them forcibly to the Bihar boarder. P.W. 3 was accompanying the buffalo carts. As the petitioners behaved in the aforesaid manner, P.W. 3 came running to the complainant and informed him about the said illegal action of the petitioners. The complainant went to the place where the buffalo carts had been stopped by the petitioners, and when he accosted them he was threatened with dire consequences. The petitioners thereafter forcibly took away the buffalo carts to the Hatibari police out -post. The complainant explained the matter before the Police Officer at the said out -post and also lodged a complaint about the said incident before the local B. D. O. As no action was taken by any of them, the complainant filed this case against the petitioners.

(3.) THE court below has found that the petitioners restrained P. Ws. 1 and 4 from taking the rice to Suajore and voluntarily obstructed those persons in proceeding in their own directions and forcibly took them to the Hatibari police out -post. On the said finding the petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 341, I. P. C. and have been sentenced thereunder as stated above. As a non -appealable sentence has been passed against the petitioners, they have preferred this revision.