MOHAMMAD SAHABUDDIN Vs. SAYED MONOWAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 10-7-90 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in G.R. Case No. 3174/86 acquitting the accused/opposite party from the offences under Sections 427/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts briefly are that an FIR was lodged by the petitioner on 26-8-86 before the Officer-in-charge, Dispur Police Station stating therein that he owned and possessed a plot of land at Srinagar (Christian Basti) Dispur Elaka and out of the said plot of land he donated a part of land for the Mosque. But the opposite party along with twenty other people formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and forcibly and wrongfully trespassed into the said land and grabbed the land with house thereon and when the petitioner protested, the opposite party wanted to assault him and threatened that if anybody tried to remove the fencing he would be killed. on the said FIR, the Dispur Police Station Case No. 400/86 was registered and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed in G.R. Case No. 3174/86 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. The trial was then conducted and as many as four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C., 1973, for examination of some of the witnesses on certain points and the said application was allowed by order dated 10-7-89 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Against the said order dated 10-7-89, the opposite party filed Criminal Revision No. 439/89 before this Court and by order dated 20-11-89 this Court allowed the Revision and set aside the order dated 10-7-89 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate with, however, the observation that the prosecution had the right to approach the Court again under Section 311, Cr.P.C., and if such petition was filed the Court must record valid and cogent reason if it allows the same. Soon thereafter the petitioner filed a fresh petition on 26-4-90 under Section 311, Cr.P.C., 1973, for summoning some witnesses, for recalling D.W. 1 for further examination and for calling for relevant holding Registers from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Revenue records, etc. from the concerned S. D. O's office. But the said petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 30-5-90. Thereafter, on 10-7-90, the impugned judgment was delivered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati acquitting the opposite party from the offence under Sections 427/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) At the hearing while Mr. A. Shariff, learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, none has appeared for the opposite party despite notice.