CHIRANJILAL Vs. SHYAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants,chiranji-lal, Roshan, Arjun and Surjan, were convicted by the Tehsildar Magistrate, Second Class, Bayana, under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 38 of Circular No. 17 of Bharatpur State, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/-each, and in default to undergo one week's rigorous imprisonment each. THE case against them was that a cow belonging to Chiranji accused strayed into the field of Shyamlal (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant ). THE complainant was taking the cow to the cattle pound, but the accused fell upon him, snatched the cow from him, and gave him a beating on the 1st of December, 1948 in the town of Ruda-wal in Bharatpur District. THE defence was that Chiranji accused had no cow, and that the accused did not snatch any cow from the complanant or give him any beating. THE learned trial Magistrate found a 1 the accused guilty of both the offences, and convicted and sentenced them as above. On appeal, the learned District Magistrate, Bharatpur, set aside the conviction under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but maintained the conviction under sec. 38 of the Circular No. 17. THE sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 25/- each. THE accused have come in revision to this court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. The complainant has not appeared inspite of notice. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned District Magistrate rejected the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so far as the offence under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, but for no reason accepted the evidence of these very witnesses so far as the offence under sec 38 of the Circular No. 17 was concerned. It was argued that the learned District Magistrate had not at all adverted to the evidence of the record, and had only made a passing observation that the prosecution evidence was to be believed so far as the offence under sec. 38 of the Circular No, 17 was concerned. Evidence of the Prosecution as well as defence was referred ,to, and it was argued that if the learned Magistrate had bestowed care upon the evidence on the record, it would not have been possible for him to maintain conviction under sec. 38 of the Circular No. 17 as well.