JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar has affirmed the conviction of each of the accused petitioners under Sections 147, 454 and 323 I. P. C, but extended the benefit of S. 4. of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to each of them. It was also ordered that the possession of quarter No. 99 should be reverted to Choti Prasad. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that there is a textile mill, called Saul Textile Mills, Sriganganagar and under the housing scheme for the labour of the said mills, a number of quarters have been constructed. The dispute relates to quarter No. 99 in the new housing colony for the labour of the mill. It was allotted to one Chothi Prasad PW 1 about 5 to 6 years prior to the occurrence which took place on. May 10-1973. It is alleged that on May 10. 1973 at about 8.00 p. m. Chothi Prasad along with his one Tejuram PW was sitting inside his quarter No. 99 and all the t accused, eight in number, committed criminal trespass, gave beating to him and threw 1 his household goods outside the quarter and accused petitioner Ramjag started living in the quarter thereafter. A report of the incident was lodged by Chothiprasad PW1 , in the police station Kotwali Sriganganagar on May 11, 1973 at 2-40 p. m. A case was registered and after investigation a chargesheet was filed against the accused f petitioners. Each of the accused petitioner was charged under S. 147, 451 and 323 I. P. C. They stand on a bare plea of denial. The plea of the accused petitioner Ramjag was that quarter No. 173 in old housing colony for labour had been allotted to Chothiprasad and though the allotment of quarter No. 99 in new colony was also in the name of Chothiprasad but actually he (Ramjag) was in possession of it for the last two years and was paying Rs. 17/- per month to Chothiprasad as rent whereas Chothiprasad was only paying Rs. 8.50 p. m. to the mills. Thus, his case is that he was in actual physical possession and because he applied for allotment of quarter No. 99 in his name on the ground of his possession and because Chothiprasad come to know of it, he lodged a false report. 8.50 p. m. to the mills. Thus, his case is that he was in actual physical possession and because he applied for allotment of quarter No. 99 in his name on the ground of his possession and because Chothiprasad come to know of it, he lodged a false report. The accused persons examined number of witnesses in defence but the learned trial court held that it was Chothiprasad who was in possession of quarter No. 99, who was dispossessed and was beaten by the accused persons, and convicted and sentenced them and on appeal, while the conviction was maintained, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to each of the accused petitioners. Though the learned trial court did not consider it proper to pass an order under Section 456 (2) Cr. P. C. that possession should be delivered to Chothi Prasad but the appellate court passed an order to that effect. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the accused petitioners that it is a case where is no evidence and even then, the two courts below have found the possession of Chothiprasad in quarter No. 99 on the date of the occurrence. He submits that many vital factors have not been taken into consideration by the two courts below and, therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by them is vitiated. The learned advocate for the complainant on the other hand submits that it is a concurrent finding of fact that on May 10, 1973, it was Chothiprasad who was in possession of quarter No. 99 and as such, this court should not interfere while sitting in revision. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the complainant has referred to Amarchand Agrawal v. Shanti Bose, ( AIR 1973 SC 799 ). It was a case in which the charge framed against the accused persons was quashed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Their Lordships observed that the jurisdiction of the High court is to be exercised normally under Section 439 Cr.P.C. only in exceptional cases when there is glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error in point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Their Lordships observed that the jurisdiction of the High court is to be exercised normally under Section 439 Cr.P.C. only in exceptional cases when there is glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error in point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The facts of that case were different and in the context of the facts of that case the above B observations were made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. If, while arriving at a finding, the courts do not take into consideration some important features of the evidence on record and if the finding of the court is such which could not be arrived at by any person of reason, depending on the facts of a particular case, this court while sitting in revision can interfere. 4. In the instant case, the important question is as to whether the complainant Chothiprasad was in possession of quarter No. 99 on May 10, 1973. There is matter on record that quarter No. 173 was also allotted to Chothiprasad and the circumstances of the case do not warrant the conclusion that it was Chothiprasad who was in possession of quarter No. 99 on the date of the occurrence. The appellate court has not taken into consideration fact of allotment of quarter No. 173 in the name of Chothiprasad in the manner which required its attention. Even PW3 Budhi Prasad, who is the real brother of Chothi Prasad, admits that quarter No. 173 stands allotted in his name and the name of his brother Chothiprasad but he admits that the rent of that quarter is being deducted out of the salary of Chothiprasad. A look at the site plan Ex. P2 will show that there are many quarters near quarter No. 99 and the best evidence would have been of the occupants of those quarters who alone could have said that it was Chothiprasad who was in possession of quarter No. 99 on the date of occurrence and not Ramjag but not a single person out of them has been examined. That apart, the only witness examined are Chothiprasad, his brother Budhiprakash. Tejuram also does not reside in the quarter and lives a mile away and according to him, he was present at the time the incident took place and was gossipping with Chothiprasad. That apart, the only witness examined are Chothiprasad, his brother Budhiprakash. Tejuram also does not reside in the quarter and lives a mile away and according to him, he was present at the time the incident took place and was gossipping with Chothiprasad. Chothiprasad has stated that it was Tejuram who had taken away his wife, children and the household goods but Tejuram does not state so Chothiprasad even denies that Tejuram belongs to his village, a fact which Tejuram PW2 admits. In case where it is alleged that beating was administered to the complainant, the best check available with the court is injuries on the person of the victim. The accused persons have been convicted under Section 323 I. P. C. and it has come in the evidence of Chothiprasad and others that he was beaten by the accused persons and received injuries. Even Chothiprasad says so but he was not medically examined and therefore, a check, which could be available, that is, the presence of injuries on the person of Chothiprasad, is lacking in this case, and neither of the two courts below have taken this vital feature of the case into consideration. It is alleged that the household goods were thrown away by the accused persons. The police reached the spot immediately after the occurrence but it did not notice any sign of throwing of articles outside the house but later found that Ramjag accused petitioner was living in the quarter along with his family members. Ex. D4A is copy of the letter dated 2-3-73, by the accused petitioner Ramjag to the Labour Officer, Sriganganagar mentioning therein that though quarter No. 99 is allotted in the name of Chothiprasad but he was in possession of it for the last two years and Chothiprasad was living in the old labour colony and, therefore, a request was made that quarter No. 99 should be allotted in his (Ramjag's) name. By that time, no incident had taken place and it cannot therefore be said that Ex. D. 4 A is a document which was prepared in advance with a well thought plan to make out the case against Chothiprasad in case he takes any action with regard to the quarter. By that time, no incident had taken place and it cannot therefore be said that Ex. D. 4 A is a document which was prepared in advance with a well thought plan to make out the case against Chothiprasad in case he takes any action with regard to the quarter. None has come from the side of the management or from the side of the Labour Officer to prove that the actual physical possession on the day of the incident was of Chothiprasad. It has come in the evidence that Chothiprasad had ceased to be a member of the union whereas the accused persons were either office bearers or members of the Union and when this incident is alleged to have taken place, labour strike in the factory was going on. Therefore, on the evidence on record, the finding of the courts below that quarter No. 99 was in actual physical possession of Chothiprasad on May 10, 1973, the date of the occurrence, is such which no reasonable men could have arrived at. It may also be mentioned here that there is a police station in Ganganagar itself and it is hardly 1,1/2 mile from the place of occurrence but the report was not lodged the same day but was lodged on May 10, 1973 and that too, at 2.40 p. m. and this delay in lodging the first information report has not been explained. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the eight accused petitioners under sections 147, 323. and 451, IPC is set aside. The bonds, if any furnished by the accused petitioners, will not be effective. The order of the learned appellate court under sec., 456 (2) Cr. P. C. is also set aside. Sd/- Mahendra Bhusban, J. *******