LEHRU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated February 2, 1979 passed in criminal appeal No. 29/78 affirming the order of City Magistrate, Udaipur dated October 19, 1978 whereby the petitioners were directed to furnish bonds for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that one Shri Dinanath son of Gulab Rai presented an application under Section 107/151/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of City Magistrate, Udaipur wherein dispute regarding agricultural land was alleged and it was stated in that application that the Khasra numbers shown in para No. 1 of the application were in the possession of the applicant Dinanath and the petitioner Shri Chunilal with the help of petitioners (opposite party) is disturbing in the peaceful possession of Shri Dinanath, here in after referred to as party No. 1. It was also alleged in the application that there is an apprehension of the breach of peace because of the unauthorised act of party No. 2. The learned City Magistrate sent the original application of party No. 1 for enquiry to the SHO, Bhopalpura. Inquiry was conducted by the SHO and a complaint under Section 107 Cr.PC was filed against party No. 2. The learned City Magistrate issued notice to the opposite party (party No. 2). The petitioner before this Court filed their reply which is available at page A/43 in the trial court file wherein it was stated that the land in dispute was in their possession. It was also stated in that reply that a revenue suit was filed by party No. 2 wherein request for temporary injunction was refused. Party No. 2 then went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against this order of dismissing the application for temporary injunction. This appeal of party No. 2 was accepted by the Revenue Appellate Authority, and party No. 1 along with certain other persons were restrained from disburbing the possession of party No. 2. Party No. 2 in support of their reply submitted the copy of the order dated June 26, 1978 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. In this order it has been observed that the land in question was in the occupation of party No. 2, and prima facie case was found in favour of party No. 2 and on this ground the learned Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the application for granting temporary injunction in favour of party No. 2 the present petitioners.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order of the City Magistrate, an appeal was presented before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but without any success. Hence this revision.