DAMODAR NATH OHDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 7-12-1998 passed by the S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 142 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned S.D.J.M. discharged the accused persons/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief as stated is that the complainant being the petitioner is the owner of the tank (Bandh) of Plot No.1141 and has been in possession of the same for more than 30 years. The complainant's father had taken the said tank by Hukumnama from ex-landlord in the year, 1946 and accordingly the rent was paid to the ex-landlord prior to the vesting of Jamindari. The complainant used to rear fish in the tank and used to catch fishes without any disturbance. Last year the complainant also reared fishes about 2 kelo in the said tank. The accused persons, after forming unlawful assembly came to the said tank with deadly weapons and fishedout about 10 monds of fishes worth Rs. 1,00000/-. The complainant also protested but the accused persons chased to assault him and his witnesses. Accordingly the complaint case was filed and after inquiry under S.202, Cr. P.C., cognizance was taken under Ss. 147/379/448 of the Indian Penal Code. Four witnesses have also been examined before charge and all the witnesses supported the case of the complainant about the occurrence but the learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons/Opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 without any basis and also illegally.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that all the witnesses examined before charge have supported the occurrence. It is further argued that the Court below has not considered the evidence of P.Ws. and passed the impugned order discharging the accused persons on flimsy grounds as the court below cannot weigh the defence version at this state but the photostat copy of the document filed by the opposite parties was relied upon, though those documents have not been brought on record to be exhibited. It is also submitted that the tank in question belonged to the complainant/petitioner and he has been coming in peaceful possession of the same but the learned court below passed the impugned order on mere assumption though the said sale deed said to be forged and fabricated have never been examined or compared and as such the impugned order is fit to be set aside.