Order The petitioners were accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 431/3/1973 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhalki. They were charge-sheeted for having committed offences punishable under sections 392, 323 and 355 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under section 4 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The Magistrate convicted the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Accused 1 and 2) for having committed the offences punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 355 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 4 of the Act, and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, two years and six months respectively. He directed that the sentences should run concurrently. 3. The accused filed Crl. Appeal No. 5 of 1976 before the Sessions Judge, Bidar. The Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions but reduced the sentences to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for one year for the offence punishable under section 355 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and maintained the sentence for the offence under section 4 of the Act. 4. The convictions and sentences are challenged in this revision petition by the accused. 5. The prosecution case is that at about 2-00 p.m. on 9th November, 1973, P.W.1 Dhondiba Gayakwad a Harijan by caste, para-medical worker in the pay of the Government in the medical department went to the hotel of Rudrayyaswamy (P.W.3) in Hulsoor village where he had, as per his programme to visit the patients suffering from leprosy, gone in the course of discharge of his duties. He took tea and sat at a table making entries in a register. The two accused went there and they were drunk. They accosted P.W.1 saying to the effect that he being a Harijan he ought not to have sat in the tea-shop and asked him why he had taken tea. So saying A-2 beat him with a hunter, A-1 beat with his hands and kicked him. A-1 and 2 took away his clothes making him naked. There was a sewing machine nearby and on it was a pair of scissors. So saying A-2 beat him with a hunter, A-1 beat with his hands and kicked him. A-1 and 2 took away his clothes making him naked. There was a sewing machine nearby and on it was a pair of scissors. A-1 took the pair of scissors and proceeded as if to cut the penis of P.W.1, but as they were drunk they fell down. P.W.1 ran away. P.W.3 was in the hotel at that time. The accused questioned P.W.3 as to why he had permitted P.W.1 to enter the teashop, allowed him to take tea and beat P.W.3. P.W.3 asked P.W.5 Masisab who had gone to the hotel to cut firewood and was engaged in that act, to go to the police patel and bring him. P.W.5 went to the police patel who told him that he should inform P.W.3 to the effect that the police patel was not. in the village. P.W.5 went and told P.W.3 that the police patel had asked him to inform him accordingly. Thereupon, the accused assaulted P.W.5 by beating him and kicking him, removed his clothes and set fire to his clothes. P.W.5 escaped from, their hands and ran away. P.W.1 secured some clothes and then went to the police station at Hulsoor by 6-00 p.m. P.W.16 Basavantha Rao, the Sub-Inspector of Police was in the police station. P.W.1 gave information and P.W.16 recorded the same and issued First Information Report in Crime No. 122 of 1973. It may be narrated here itself that according to P.W.1 he had Rs. 102 in his pocket and the accused had removed the same after beating. Therefore, P.W.16 registered the case for an offence under section 7 of the Act and for offences under sections 392 and426 of the Indian Penal Code. After sending P. W. 1 to Basavakalyan Hospital, P.W.16 proceeded to the spot by 7-00 a.m., on 10th November, 1973. P.W.1. reached the hospital in the morning of 10th November, 1973 and P.W.2 Dr.Veerabhadrappa Kulkarni examined and treated P.W.1 P.W.16 recorded the statements of P.Ws. 3 and 5 and other eye-witnesses P.Ws. 6 and 7 and sent P.Ws. 3 and 5 to the same hospital for treatment. P.W.2 examined them and treated them and also issued injury certificates to P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. 6. P.Ws. 6 and 7 and 3 have not supported the prosecution. 3 and 5 and other eye-witnesses P.Ws. 6 and 7 and sent P.Ws. 3 and 5 to the same hospital for treatment. P.W.2 examined them and treated them and also issued injury certificates to P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. 6. P.Ws. 6 and 7 and 3 have not supported the prosecution. Similarly seven other witnesses out of the sixteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution. Therefore, the case of the prosecution was to be examined in the light of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5, of course, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances available in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 16. 7. The Courts below have accepted the version of P.Ws. 1 and 5 so far as the assault on P.Ws. 1 and 5 is concerned. They have not accepted the version of P.W.1 in regard to the accused removing Rs. 102 from the pocket of P.W.1. 8. Sri L. Umakanthan, learned Counsel appearing for the accused argued that section 4 of the Act is not at all attracted in view of the fact that P.W.1 had already even according to the case of the prosecution, access to the tea-shop of P.W.3 and he had taken tea in the tea-shop. I am unable to agree with this contention. The relevant portion of section 4 of the Act reads as follows: “Punishment for enforcing social disabilities.- Who ever on the ground of untouchability enforces against any person any disability with regard to (i) access to any shop, public restaurant, hotel or place of public entertainment………………..” If the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 is accepted what would be proved by the prosecution is t hat the accused violently objected to P.W.1 having had access into the tea-shop of P.W.3 and taken tea there and be sitting there on the ground that P.W.1 was disabled from doing so being a Harijan. This, in my opinion, is nothing but enforcing disability against P.W.1 on the ground of untouchability. If on the ground of untouchability a person is removed from such a place, it does amount to enforcing disability against such a person on the ground of untouchability. Similarly violently objecting to a person's entry into such a place and his presence in such a place also amounts to enforcing disability against such a person on the ground of untouchability. Similarly violently objecting to a person's entry into such a place and his presence in such a place also amounts to enforcing disability against such a person on the ground of untouchability. Therefore, I reject this contention. 9. As already stated the Courts below have accepted and acted on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5. P.W.1 is an independent witness and a respectable person being a Government servant. His cross-examination has not brought-forth any material to show that he had any kind of grudge against any of these accused. He has, within a reasonable time after 2.00 p.m. gone to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex. P-1, as against these accused. These facts show that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be discarded merely on the ground of his being as interested witness, being the victim of the assault. Sri L. Umakanthan argued that if really P.W.5 had been assaulted as claimed by him, P.W.5 would not have failed to lodge a complaint in Hulsoor police station and therefore, the two Courts below were not right in accepting his evidence as “reliable and this fact coupled with the fact that P.W.1 has not stated anything about the assault on P.W.5, ought to have made the Courts below to discard the evidence of P.W.1. This contention also is not in my opinion sound. It is true that P.W.5. did not voluntarily go to the police station and lodge information. But the fact remains, as is available in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 and also 16, that P.W.16 recorded the statement of P.W.5 by 7-00 a.m. on the next day. P.W.16 was investigating into the offences punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 355 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also section 4 of the Act. The offences punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Act are cognizable offences. Therefore, P.W.16 was, in view of sub- section (4) of section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code, competent to investigate into all these offences said to have been committed by the accused. The offences punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Act are cognizable offences. Therefore, P.W.16 was, in view of sub- section (4) of section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code, competent to investigate into all these offences said to have been committed by the accused. When P.W.16 came across the information on examining P.W.5 on 10th November, 1973 at about 7-00 a.m., about the assault on P.W.5 he should have chargesheeted the accused for committing an offence under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code, as against P.W.5 also; because according to the case of the prosecution, the assault on P.W.5 was made by the accused in the course of the same transaction. P.W.5 has sworn that he was very much shaken after being assaulted by the accused in the aforementioned manner and therefore, due to fear kept quiet. The two Courts below have accepted this explanation and that is not an unreasonable view taken by the two Courts below. 10. Sri L. Umakanthan argued that according to P.W.1, A-2 hit P.W.1 in the first instance by means of a hunter while that part of the incident is not narrated by P.W.5 and that according to P.W.1, the accused said to him ‘You being a Harijan why are you sitting in this tea shop and why you took tea” and the same is not narrated by P.W.5 and hence, their evidenceis not trustworthy. What P.W.5 has stated is that A-1 beat and kicked P.W.1 and A-2 also beat him saying that P.W.1 being a Hariian ought not to have entered the tea shop of P.W.3 and taken tea there. This clearly shows that P.W. 5 has stated that he witnessed that part of the incident which took place after A-2 assaulted P.W. 1 with a hunter. P.W.5 also is an independent and disinterested witness. No material has been brought out in his cross-examination to show that he had an axe to grind against any of the accused. Therefore, the two Courts below have taken a reasonable view in accepting the evidence of P.W.5. 11. Further, this Court cannot in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction re-appreciate the evidence, if a reasonable view of the evidence is taken by the two Courts below. Therefore, the two Courts below have taken a reasonable view in accepting the evidence of P.W.5. 11. Further, this Court cannot in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction re-appreciate the evidence, if a reasonable view of the evidence is taken by the two Courts below. Even if two reasonable views are possible, then also this Court ought not to, as settled by law impose its own view. That is how the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised. In that view of the matter, I do not see any good ground to reject the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 which has been accepted by the two Courts below. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I see no substance in this petition and dismiss it. S.V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.