AMRIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, dated 6th Dec,, '86', which, he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and maintained his conviction u/s 379 & 447, IPC.

(2.) ONE Prbhati lodged a written report at P. S. Mundawar on 21st Sept. , '82' alleging that some 4-5 years before he was allotted 4 bighas and 7 biswas of land situated in Village- Silgaon, by the Government, under Antodaya Scheme, bearing khasra Nos. 213 212. In this land, he cultivated crop, and when the crop was ripe, Amria and his family members cut the said crop and took it away. On this report, a case u/s, 379, IPC was registered.

(3.) APART from this, Prabhati in his cross-examination has said that he was in possession of the disputed land, which, according to him. means that he was paying the 'lagan' (levy) for it. Because he was paying the 'lagan', so he is in possession of the land, is no proof of possession. This shows that the complainant was not put in possession of allotted land. The matter is under dispute in revenue court. The accused person is challenging the allotment-order So paying 'lagan' only for the disputed land, does not prove that the complainant was put in possession thereof. There is thus, no proof on the record that after allotment by the Government, the complainant was put in possession of the allotted (disputed) land. The Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence and incorrectly held that Prabhati was in possession of the said land. There was no question of committing trespass by the accused-petitioner, because, he he was in its possession when the land was allotted to Prabhati. Therefore, conviction of the accused-petitioner u/s. 447, I. P. C, is bad. When Prabhati was not in possession of the land, there was no question of his cultivating the said land. So, no question of committing theft and taking away the harvested crop from the land arises in this case. So, the conviction passed against the accused-petitioner u/s. 379. IPC is again bad.