STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHIRAJRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is directed against the order dated 7-2-1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner while discharging the accused-respondents of offence under Section 436, I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that Choona Ram resident of Village Kujjeti, lodged a verbal report at the Police Station, Loonkaransal on 29-11-1983 at 10 a.m. alleging that the fields of his own and that of his brother Chota Ram each having area of 50 bighas are situated on the southern side of the village. Both these fields are situated adjacent to each other. He has sown crop of 'Gawar' in 60 bighas and he had also built a hut in the middle of the field to keep a watch of the crop standing there. The harvested crop of 'Gawar' was stacked in the 'Khalihan' prepared just adjacent to the hut and a thorn fencing was raised around the same. On 24-11-1983, he had gone to attend some Court case at Ajmer and on his return on 28-11-1983 at Bikaner, he learnt through one Kishana Ram that, in his absence, the accused-respondents had set ablaze the harvested crop stacked in the 'Khalihan' as well as the thorny fence and the hut resulting in their destruction and hence F.I.R. No. 104/83 was registered, on his information, under Sections 447, 435 and 436, I.P.C. and, as a result of investigation, the accused-respondents were challenged for commission of the alleged offences including the one under Section 436, I.P.C. before the committal Court, which, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who after hearing both sides, vide his impugned order, held that there were no grounds to believe that offence under Section 436, I.P.C. was committed and, consequently, while discharging the accused-respondents from offence under Section 436, I.P.C., rest of the offences including one under Section 437, I.P.C. being triable by the Court of First Class Magistrate, the case was remitted to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of power vesting under Section 228(1), Cr.P.C. and, being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal by filing an application purporting to be under Section 378(1) and (3), Cr.P.C. was filed and this Court was pleased to have granted leave to file appeal vide its order dated 28-9-1984.

(3.) I have heard the learned P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and also perused and considered the impugned order dated 7-2-1984.