SUKHIA AND OTHERS Vs. BHAGIRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution case as disclosed during enquiry was that on July 30, 1968 the petitioners along with seven other persons formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to dispossess the non-petitioner Bhagirath from Khasra No. 155, measuring 1371/2 Bighas. In pursuance of the common object all of them after being armed with 'lathis' and came with a plough and began to destroy the crop standing on the above mentioned field. They also inflicted injuries on the person of Bhagirath and Haringa Ram. The complainant Bhagirath lodged a first information report at the Police Station, Luni, but the Police did hot take any action on that first information report. On the contrar the Police registered a case against the complainant, and the members of his party and filed a challan against them. Being aggrieved of that the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur on April 18, 1969 against seventeen persons. The learned Magistrate registered a case against all the seventeen persons under sections 325, 323, 447, 147 and 149 IPC. Accused Chainsingh, Bishnu, Mangiya, and Babudas could not be served, and as such the proceeding against them were dropped by the learned Magistrate by his order dated Feb. 13, 1970. The complainant-examined himself and one witness PW 2 Ramchander in support of his case. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments and perusing the record, discharged eleven accused persons and ordered for framing of charges against accused Nandkishore and Narpat Singh under sections 323 and 325, Penal Code by his order dated April 18, 1972. Being aggrieved of the above mentioned order of is charge the complainant took up a revision petition before the Court of Sessions judges Jodhpur against 12 persons and did not file any revision against the discharge order passed in favour of Bhopal Singh, which came up for decision afore the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, who by his judgment anted Nov. 29, 1972 accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of charge passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence this revision petition by the petitioners.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that there is no evidence Orth the name against them. The complainant himself has not assigned any specific at the time of occurrence, to any one of them and the learned Additional Sessions judge committed an error of law leading to the miscarriage of justice by accepting revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge applied is mind only on the point of evidence regarding possession of the complainant, but did not deal with the case of each accused. Mr. Bishnoi after some efforts felt it difficult to support the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It cannot 5 said that the court at the stage of framing of charges has not to apply its judicial find for considering whether or not there is a ground for presuming the commission the offence by the accused. The order framing the charges does substantially effect a person's liberty. In this case the complainant himself closed the evidence fore the enquiring court on Feb. 7, 1972 and thereafter the case was sed for arguments regarding framing of charges. In these circumstances, there is no question of any further evidence being led for bringing home the charges to the petitioners. On the existing material, there is no ground for presuming them to be equity, and, therefore, can hardly be any point in framing the charges and going through the process of a trial and then acquitting them. Such a course would merely result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioners without serving a cause of justice.

(3.) The order of discharge passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur did not suffer from any serious legal infirmity and it was eminent, just and fair. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in reversing that order in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction.