SAKHARAM Vs. MUJAHIDUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Sakharam Patel to revise the order of acquittal passed by Mr. M.A. S. Khan, Magistrate, First Class, Akola, in favour of the 14 non applicants who figured as accused in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1928.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present application are shortly these: The whale of Survey No. 145 of Mouza Kanheri in the Balapur Taluk of the Akola District belonged to 4 Khatib brothers, two of whom were Bismilla Saheb and Jalaluddin. The applicant, Sakharam, alleged that six years ago, although he purchased) this entire field in execution of a civil Court's decree against Bismilla Saheb only, he secured possession of only the southern half of it because the northern half was already in possession of a receive? appointed by the criminal Court in proceedings taken against all the four brothers under Section 145, Criminal P.C., that he had been in possession of this half since then, that on 26th October 1927 Jalaluddin and other accused came in the field, attacked him and his party and forcibly removed a cart full of cotton that had been recently picked out of his, southern half, and that he accordingly made a report to the police as a result of which the non-applicants were prosecuted for offences under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C.

(3.) THE main point for determination therefore was as to which of the two parties was in possession of the southern half of the field and had raised the cotton crops which were alleged to be the subject of dacoity. A mass of documentary evidence was placed on the record on both sides showing the previous history of possession of the field and a number of witnesses were examined on both sides to prove the fact of actual possession and the raising of the crops which were standing in the southern half of the field in the latter part of the year 1927. The trying Magistrate in an extraordinarily elaborate judgment of 72 paragraphs the certified copy of which covers 34 typed sheets laboriously analyzed and criticized the whole of the oral and documentary evidence on record with care, and came to the conclusion that the defence version was true and acquitted all the accused who are cited as non-applicants in the present application for revision.