JUDGMENT D. B. Lal, J.—This appeal is brought from the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamsala, acquitting Onkar Singh of the offence under section 323 of the I. P. Code and the complainant Jodha Ram had filed this appeal against the acquittal under special leave granted by this Court. 2. The facts governing the case were, that Jodha Ram was cultivating the disputed land, measuring 12 Kanals, out of a certain Khata described in a complaint as tenant under Onkar Singh. He claimed to be cultivating that land from 4/5 years although the revenue entries did not exist in his favour. For that he asked for correction of the revenue entries, but his application was defeated and the learned counsel representing the appellant submits before us that an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer against the previous rejection of the application for correction of the revenue entries. It was, therefore, undisputed that the revenue entries made in the revenue record were subject-matter of a dispute between the parties. At any rate, Jodha Ram claimed to have cultivated the land from 4/5 years. Nevertheless, it was stated that Onkar Singh accused along with a few others appeared at about 8.00 P. M. on 18-6-1970 and attempted forcible possession over the land. In that connection they went to Jodha Ram and caused some injuries to him. Subsequently, Jodha Ram lodged a complaint before the Magistrate. He was medically examined by one Dr. V. D. Sharma who found lacerated wounds and injuries on his person. The case was a complaint case and the Magistrate also asked for police investigation and ultimately issued process and framed charge under section 323 of the I. P. Code against Onkar Singh. His co-accused were, however, discharged. While the case proceeded against Onkar Singh as many as four eye-witnesses were produced by Jodha Ram who are Jodha Ram himself, Joti (PW-2), Kirpa Ram (PW-3) and Devia (PW-4). Dr. V. D. Sharma (PW-5) also appeared to prove the injuries. 3. The defence of Onkar Singh was that he was landowner and that he never acknowledged Jodha Ram to be his tenant. The revenue entries were in his favour. However, he denied that no such incident took place. He produced three witnesses, namely. Yog Raj (DW-1), Bardoo Ram (DW 2) and Dali Ram (DW 3). 3. The defence of Onkar Singh was that he was landowner and that he never acknowledged Jodha Ram to be his tenant. The revenue entries were in his favour. However, he denied that no such incident took place. He produced three witnesses, namely. Yog Raj (DW-1), Bardoo Ram (DW 2) and Dali Ram (DW 3). Yog Raj (DW-1) and Bardoo Ram (DW-2) stated that only the accused cultivated the disputed land while Dali Ram (DW-3) besides saying so also admitted that the accused was in Government service in Delhi for the last 14/15 years. 4. The learned Magistrate did not consider all this evidence but confined his attention to the revenue entries. According to him if the revenue entries existed in favour of Jodha Ram he shall be deemed to be in possession over the land. Merely relying on the revenue entries, he opined that Onkar Singh developed a right of private defence of his property as such could belabour Jodha Ram. Accordingly he acquitted Onkar Singh. 5. It is abundantly clear that the question as to who was actually cultivating the land was of prima facie importance. The learned Magistrate did not pay attention to that question. He referred to the revenue entries and made the following observation:— "It is correct that the accused has not taken the plea of right of private defence of property but the prosecution case and the prosecution evidence as mentioned above clearly makes out such a plea in favour of the accused..................the accused has been recorded as owner in possession of the disputed land and the complainant who possess himself to be a tenant does not find his name in the record of right. In such circumstances the accused resisting the complainant from cultivating the disputed land definitely gives a right of self-defence of his property which was exercised by him and in the exercise of that right the alleged simple injury was given to the complainant." 6. In fact the learned Magistrate conceded the complainants argument that he was cultivating the land although the accused was the owner. In fact the learned Magistrate conceded the complainants argument that he was cultivating the land although the accused was the owner. The learned Magistrate has made the following observation: "The learned defence counsel has stressed that even if the alleged incident is said to have been proved and established by the complainant in that event also, the accused who is the owner of the disputed land and recorded in cultivation of the same has got right of private defence of his property and in the exercise of that right if any simple injury has been caused to the complainant the accused is entitled to be given the benefit of said exception." 7. All this discussion made by the learned Magistrate that the revenue entry by itself gave a right of private defence of the property and the accused could cause the simple injury on the person of the complainant is, in our opinion, entriely wrong. If it was established that in fact the dispute land was being cultivated by Jodha Ram the revenue entry may or may not be in his name, in our opinion, Onkar Singh had no right to take the law in his hand. He could take recourse to the concerned authority and could ask for eviction of Jodha Ram. The act of forcible possession by belaboring the complainant never gave rise to a right to beat in exercise of private defence of property. In that connection reference can be made to the then section 99 which specifically laid down that no right of private defence existed m a case in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. The present case could have been covered under that provision. Onkar Singh would have no right to beat the complainant. 8. The difficulty with us is that the learned Magistrate has not considered the oral evidence at all. He has not referred to the statements of Jodha Ram (PW-1). Joti (PW-2) and Kirpa Ram (PW-3). The last witness definitely stated that Jodha Ram was cultivating the land for the last 5/6 years. Devia (PW-4) has also made that statement. Jodha Ram (PW-1) stated that the accused was residing at Delhi. However DW-3 extended that period to 14/15 years. He has not referred to the statements of Jodha Ram (PW-1). Joti (PW-2) and Kirpa Ram (PW-3). The last witness definitely stated that Jodha Ram was cultivating the land for the last 5/6 years. Devia (PW-4) has also made that statement. Jodha Ram (PW-1) stated that the accused was residing at Delhi. However DW-3 extended that period to 14/15 years. At any rate, the learned Magistrate was required to consider the statements of all the witnesses including the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 on merit and thereafter he could have arrived at any finding if Jodha Ram was really cultivating the disputed land. It was for the learned Magistrate to go through the evidence and to arrive at his own finding. The view that we have taken is lent support from a decision Hazara Singh and others v. The State, AIR 1959 Punjab 570. In that case a learned Judge of that High Court considered the case of a trespasser and held that his possession too could not be disturbed by the accused by taking the law in his own hand and the right of self-defence did not arise in favour of the accused. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right when he submitted that the judgment of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained and the order of the acquittal has got to be set aside. 10. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate to decide the same on merit in the light of the observations made above. Appeal allowed.