JUDGMENT 1. - All the above named seven accused persons have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No 1, Jodhpur in case No. 10/74 under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. But each of them has only been sentenced under section 332 I.P.C. to undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment, for, they were also tried under section 307/149 I. P. C. but they were acquitted. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that one Ram Ratan Kewalia P. W. 2 was Additional Patwari Devikot. A tank known as `Chachak-de' was being constructed in the village Megha Patwar circle Rama, Tehsil Jaisalmer under the Famine works and Ramratan Kewalia was asked to supervise. The work started on May 24, 1973 and many Villagers were employed on the said work. It is alleged that on May 29, 1973. when the attendance was taken in the evening one Smt. Hajari was absent but one Lachhi made a proxy for her. Bhanwarsingh who was a site mistry brought this to the notice of Ramratan P. W. 1 and he marked Smt. Hajari absent in the muster roll. Lakha accused-appellant then quarrelled with Ramratan and the matter ended. But when in the evening at about 5 or 6 Ramratan P. W. 6 was going back from his work to his residence, it is alleged that 20 to 25 neighbours came and the 7 accused appellant encircled him. Lakha accused caught hold of Ramratan by his neck and in his scuffle went to snatch the attendance register which was torn. It is also alleged that other accused persons caught hold of Ramratan. All the accused persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge for the various offences and as a result it is observed, they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. I have been taken to the evidence on record and I may straight away say that only case against Lakha alias Ladia accused-appellant No. 2 under sections 332 and 353 I. P. C. is made out. I will presently give the reasons for it. 4. None of the accused was charged under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code for having formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to give beating to Ramratan Patwari to deter him in discharge of his official duty or for having done anything in the discharge of his duty. I will presently give the reasons for it. 4. None of the accused was charged under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code for having formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to give beating to Ramratan Patwari to deter him in discharge of his official duty or for having done anything in the discharge of his duty. So that as it may, a look at the statement of Bhanwarsingh P. W. 1 who was the site mistry will show that he has clearly stated in his cross-examination that only Lakhia and Jalal caught hold of Ramratan Patwari, He has clearly stated that so far as other accused persons are concerned none other caught hold of him and were only standing nearby. The story of the prosecution that the other accused persons resorted there accused persons to catch hold of Ramratan or to snatch away the muster roll does not appear to be correct as it does not find mention in the first information report. Ramratan P. W. 3 has given a different name. He has stated that it was Ladia alias Lakhia who had caught hold of him by neck. He has also stated that it was Babu and Jalal who had caught hold of him by his neck. Bhanwarsingh has not stated that Babu also caught the Patwari by his hand. Therefore, all that can be said is that the name of Lakhia and Jalal are common as the persons who caught hold the Patwari by hand. Ramlal P. W. 2 who was also the site mistry has stated that it was Lakhia alone who caught hold of the Patwari by hand. Therefore on the evidence on record it becomes doubtful if any other accused other than Lakhia caught hold of the Patwari and tried to snatch away the muster roll. It is very strange that the learned Sessions Judge has not even discussed the statement of Bhanwarsingh. 5. After having gone through the record of the case I am of the opinion that only a case under section 332 I. P. C. is made out against Lakhia alias Ladia accused. 6. In the result, I hereby allow the appeal of accused persons other than Lakhia alias Ladia, namely, Babu, Dhokla, Chanana, Rawata, Jalal and Bhana. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The sentences awarded to them are hereby set aside. 6. In the result, I hereby allow the appeal of accused persons other than Lakhia alias Ladia, namely, Babu, Dhokla, Chanana, Rawata, Jalal and Bhana. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The sentences awarded to them are hereby set aside. The appeal of Lakhia alias Ladia is partly allowed, his conviction under sections 332 and 353 I.P.C. are maintained. But he is only sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 332 I. P. C. only. In default of payment of fine as aforesaid, he shall suffer three months' simple imprisonment. Sd/- M. B. Sharma, J.Appeal partly allowed. *******