CHIMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Chiman Lal (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur dated 21.11.1994. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class held that a prima facie case punishable under Section 430, Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class framed the charge against the petitioner with respect to the above mentioned offence punishable under Section 430, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the assertions as against the petitioner have been enumerated in the letter dated 30.6.1994 written by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ferozepur. The translation of the same reads as under :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner asserts that on the basis of these assertions offence punishable under Section 430, Indian Penal Code is not made out, therefore, the petitioner as such should be discharged. He strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 490. Before the petitioner can take advantage of the said precedent, the facts of the cited case necessarily must be taken care of. It appears from the statement of facts that one Sher Singh was a landlord. His land was declared surplus. Part of the land which was declared surplus was allotted by the authorities to Dalip Singh. Subsequently, heirs of Sher Singh tried to dispossess Dalip Singh. The civil suit was filed by Dalip Singh in which heirs of Sher Singh were restrained to dispossess Dalip Singh forcibly or illegally. A complaint had been made against Parkash Singh who is son of Dalip Singh with respect to the offence punishable under Sections 430 and 379, Indian Penal Code, pertaining to illegally taking water from the canal after fixing a pipe and unauthorisedly mixing the water with their own water. It was in this background that the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the First Information Report had been registered at the instance of heirs of Sher Singh against whom an order of injunction is operative. The First Information Report, as such, was quashed. Reference was also made to the fact that unauthorised use of canal water is not an offence under the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873.