MANPHOOL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar has affirmed the conviction of each of the accused petitioners under Sections 147, 454 and 323 I. P. C, but extended the benefit of S. 4. of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to each of them. It was also ordered that the possession of quarter No. 99 should be reverted to Choti Prasad.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that there is a textile mill, called Saul Textile Mills, Sriganganagar and under the housing scheme for the labour of the said mills, a number of quarters have been constructed. The dispute relates to quarter No. 99 in the new housing colony for the labour of the mill. It was allotted to one Chothi Prasad PW 1 about 5 to 6 years prior to the occurrence which took place on. May 10-1973. It is alleged that on May 10. 1973 at about 8.00 p. m. Chothi Prasad along with his one Tejuram PW was sitting inside his quarter No. 99 and all the t accused, eight in number, committed criminal trespass, gave beating to him and threw 1 his household goods outside the quarter and accused petitioner Ramjag started living in the quarter thereafter. A report of the incident was lodged by Chothiprasad PW1 , in the police station Kotwali Sriganganagar on May 11, 1973 at 2-40 p. m. A case was registered and after investigation a chargesheet was filed against the accused f petitioners. Each of the accused petitioner was charged under S. 147, 451 and 323 I. P. C. They stand on a bare plea of denial. The plea of the accused petitioner Ramjag was that quarter No. 173 in old housing colony for labour had been allotted to Chothiprasad and though the allotment of quarter No. 99 in new colony was also in the name of Chothiprasad but actually he (Ramjag) was in possession of it for the last two years and was paying Rs. 17/- per month to Chothiprasad as rent whereas Chothiprasad was only paying Rs. 8.50 p. m. to the mills. Thus, his case is that he was in actual physical possession and because he applied for allotment of quarter No. 99 in his name on the ground of his possession and because Chothiprasad come to know of it, he lodged a false report. The accused persons examined number of witnesses in defence but the learned trial court held that it was Chothiprasad who was in possession of quarter No. 99, who was dispossessed and was beaten by the accused persons, and convicted and sentenced them and on appeal, while the conviction was maintained, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to each of the accused petitioners. Though the learned trial court did not consider it proper to pass an order under Sec. 456 (2) Cr. P. C. that possession should be delivered to Chothi Prasad but the appellate court passed an order to that effect.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the accused petitioners that it is a case where is no evidence and even then, the two courts below have found the possession of Chothiprasad in quarter No. 99 on the date of the occurrence. He submits that many vital factors have not been taken into consideration by the two courts below and, therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by them is vitiated. The learned advocate for the complainant on the other hand submits that it is a concurrent finding of fact that on May 10, 1973, it was Chothiprasad who was in possession of quarter No. 99 and as such, this court should not interfere while sitting in revision. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the complainant has referred to Amarchand Agrawal Vs. Shanti Bose, (AIR 1973 SC 799 ). It was a case in which the charge framed against the accused persons was quashed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Their Lordships observed that the jurisdiction of the High court is to be exercised normally under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. only in exceptional cases when there is glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error in point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The facts of that case were different and in the context of the facts of that case the above B observations were made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. If, while arriving at a finding, the courts do not take into consideration some important features of the evidence on record and if the finding of the court is such which could not be arrived at by any person of reason, depending on the facts of a particular case, this court while sitting in revision can interfere.