LAWS(RAJ)-1950-7-20

BHURA Vs. STATE

Decided On July 28, 1950
BHURA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under the provisions of S. 435, Criminal P. C. directed against an order dated 11-1-1950, passed by the learned District Magistrate of Ajmer in Cri. App. No. 2 of 1949 whereby the conviction of the appellants by the original Court under S. 379, Penal Code was altered into a conviction under S. 424, Penal Code with a sentence of a fine of Rs. 35 each or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. Two points have been urged before me by learned counsel for the applicants; firstly, that the applicants have been seriously prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the learned District Magistrate by which the conviction has been altered from one under S. 379, Penal Code to one under S. 424, Penal Code without opportunity having been given to the applicants to meet that case. Secondly, that upon the facts and evidence on the record, it cannot for a moment be said that the applicants "dishonestly or fraudulently concealed or removed the crop" within the meaning of those terms so as to be guilty under S. 424 Penal Code.

(2.) These 21 applicants have been the tenants of Barli estate. They were put on trial along with seven others inclusive of one Munshiram who was charged with the abetment of the offence. Munshiram and the other six alleged abettors were acquitted by the learned Magistrate in the trial Court on the ground that it was doubtful whether they instigated the tenants to the commission of any offence. As against these 21 applicants, the facts lay within a narrow compass and were not seriously disputed. As tenants of Barli estate, the rabi crop of 1947 had been harvested by them and had been stored over the fields in khalas so that the apportionment between them and the zamindar may be made. The provisions for the division of crops and the estimating of produce between landlord and tenants are contained in Ss. 48, 49, 50 and 51, Ajmer Land Revenue Regulation No. II (2) of 1877 and these provisions may be reproduced below for a clear understanding of the matter;

(3.) Heard the parties.