ADITYA NARAIN RAI Vs. RAMASIS RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the complainant on grant of special leave by this Court under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) from the order dated the 13th August, 1962, of Shri C. N. Tiwary, Magistrate 1st Class, Dinapore, acquitting all the twenty respondents tinder Section 2514(11) of the Code.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that there is a house on a piece of land bearing plot No. 410, khata No. 50, in village Lodipur Chandwari, Police station Dinapore. In the khatian, according to the evidence of the appellant (P. W. 5), the house was recorded in possession of one Mangar Gope. Pran Gope was his brother. The former died issueless, leaving behind Mt. Faguni as his widow. Pran had pre-deceased Mangar, leaving behind his widow Mt. Tileshwari and his daughter Sundri Devi. Girja and Ganga are sons of Sundri. On the 27th May, 1947, Mt. Faguni and Mt. Tileshwari executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Ganga Prasad in respect of the house in question. On the 30th January, 1960, a sale deed was executed by Ganga Prasad his brother Girja Prasad, and their mother Mt. Sundri, in favour of the appellant conveying the house to him. According to his case, Mangar Gope was in possession of the said house. Thereafter Faguni and Tileshwari were in its possession and Ganga came in possession after the property was gifted to him in the year 1947 and the appellant claims to be in possession after his purchase from Ganga and others in the year 1960.

(3.) On the 28th October, 1960, Assistant Sub-inspector (P. W. 8) submitted a report to the Sub-divisional Officer, Dinapore, for action under Sections 144 and 107 of the Code against six persons, who were described as the first party in the proceeding under Section 144 of Code and in which proceeding the appellant was shown as the second party. The proceeding under Section 144 of the Code was ultimately decided in favour of the aopellant by the Sub-divisional Officer on the 12th December, 1960. Thereafter the case of the appellant is that at 5 P. M. on that very date he went to the house in question and unlocked the room which had been locked up by the police before the start of the proceeding with a view to obviate the apprehension of the breach of the peace. Then the respondents and one more man named Basant, who was not traced and put on trial, appeared at the house in a mob variously armed, started breaking the locks, asked the appellant to get out of the house, threatened him with death or assault, assaulted him with fists and slaps, broke open the locks of the rooms, removed move ables belonging to the appellant and took them to their houses. A list of stolen properties was given in the complaint petition. With these allegations in brief the appellant filed a complaint petition before the Sub-divisional Officer, Dinapore, on the 13th December, 1960. The learned Sub-divisional Officer examined the appellant on solemn affirmation, as his order dated the 13th December, 1960, shows, and thereafter he passed the following order on that date:-