SITARAM Vs. TILOKCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Sitaram filed a criminal complaint against the non-applicants, Tilokchand and Ganpat, and two persons. The main allegations contained in the complaint were these. Narayan, Sitaram's employer, obtained a decree for possession of certain land; in execution of the decree possession of the land was given to Narayan in the presence of the non-applicants on 22nd February 1930. The land was ploughed and sown by Sitaram in the beginning of the rains: but the non-applicants took forcible possession of it. On 5th October 1930 the complainant taking a number of men and ploughs went to the land in order to uproot the crop sown by the non-applicants: the non-applicants resisted and caused hurt to the complainant, but their crops were uprooted and a fresh crop was sown. Some time later the non-applicants again took possession of the land and sowed a fresh crop.

(2.) THE Honorary Magistrates, after a full trial, acquitted all the accused. The findings that the accused other than the non-applicants are not guilty of any offence and that the alleged assault has not been proved are not challenged. I am asked to interfere in revision with the acquittal of the non-applicants of the offences alleged other than the causing of hurt. I first consider the provisions of Section 439, Criminal P. C., regarding interference with a finding of acquittal with reference to the facts of this case. Section 439 (4) states: Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

(3.) THE learned Judge who decided that case was considering an application, the grounds of which challenged the appreciation of evidence by the lower Court. In my opinion, it is not contrary to practice for this Court to set aside a finding of acquittal if that finding is based on an erroneous view of the law. I add that if the findings of fact would justify a conviction if a correct view of [the law has been taken, that should not prevent interference. It would be anomalous if this Court were to interfere when the facts were doubtful but refuse to interfere when the allegations of fact made by the complainant had been admitted or had been found to be correct. The proper course in the latter case is for this Court to give no opinion on the facts and to leave it open for the Court which deals with the case after the conviction has been set aside, to come to a fresh conclusion after considering the admissions of the accused and the evidence. I shall therefore accept any findings of fact which are in favour of the non-applicant and avoid giving any opinion regarding the truth of other allegations in the plaint.