JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. There situates Khasra No. 448 (old Khasra No. 407) admeasuring 2.76 Hectare at village Dhudhwa Nagalya, Tehsil. Khetri, Distt..Ihunjhunu. It is recorded as `Ghair Mumkin Johar' in relevant revenue record and by virtue of that character of its land it vests in State of Rajasthan as per Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This position is stated to have been continuing since long. 3. On November 25, 1971 twelve Bighas of the disputed land was allotted to Rameshwar Dayal, a member of the prosecution party. But on an application made under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules 1970, the said allotment was cancelled on January 18, 1976 by the Collector, Jhunjhunu and the cancellation was upheld by Revenue Appellate Authority on April 13, 1976 and also by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan on March 12, 1982 (1982 RRD 576). The Tehsildar accordingly directed the concerned patwari on 12.10.82 to dispossess Rameshwar Dayal, aforesaid. Rameshwar Dayal unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Tehsildar before the Collector, Jhunjhunu who dismissed his appeal on July 17, 1983. But the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside Collector's order on May 2, 1986. At this stage it may be pointed out that during the pendency of Rameshwar Dayal's appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Gram Panchayat, Dhudhwa Nagalya, had filed an application for its impleadment as a party to the proceedings but such application was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority on April 5, 1985 and such order was also upheld by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan on June 12, 1985. Any way, in the course of such chequared history of this litigation Rameshwar Dayal filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the court of Sub- Divisional Officer, Khetri who decreed the same on August 24, 1984. Aggrieved by the decree dated 24.8.1984, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri, the State of Rajasthan filed Req. No. 4/Jhunjhunu of 1.987 in the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan which, vide its judgment and order dated May 31, 1988 (1988 RRD 455), held that on the cancellation of the allotment of the disputed land in his favour Rameshwar Dayal had become trespasser liable to be rightly ejected by the Tehsildar. No. 4/Jhunjhunu of 1.987 in the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan which, vide its judgment and order dated May 31, 1988 (1988 RRD 455), held that on the cancellation of the allotment of the disputed land in his favour Rameshwar Dayal had become trespasser liable to be rightly ejected by the Tehsildar. The Board of Revenue accordingly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri in favour of Rameshwar Dayal on 27.8.84 and accepted the reference. Apart from giving rise to multiplicity of litigation before the Revenue Courts and authorities, the dispute over the possession of the land of Khasra No. 448 (old No. 407) between Rameshwar Dayal and Party on the one hand and the petitioners and/or other villagers on the other involved in a number of criminal cases. 4. It was in the above background that the unfortunate incident, which left three persons dead-two of the petitioner - accused party and one of Rameshwar Dayal's complainant-party, and several persons injured on both sides, took place on August 4, 1.992 at 5.00 a.m. at the blood-hungry land of Khasra No. 407, afore-mentioned. The version given in the First Information Report No. 212/92 lodged by Rameshwar Dayal informant was that at the relevant day, time and place when the informant, his son Rajbir, his brother Birbal (deceased) and his nephew Indraj were ploughing the allotted land by Khasra No. 407 with tractor, the petitioners, duly armed with lathies, spears, axes etc. reached there and opened an attack upon them and caused death of Birbal and injuries to others. It was also stated that in self defence Birbal had fired with a gun before failing on the ground and succumbing to his injuries. On the basis of this F.I.R. a case Under section 147, 1.48, 149, 447, 323, 302 IPC was registered and after investigation the police submitted a report Under section 173 Cr.PC for offences Under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 IPC against the petitioners. 5. Prior to the lodging of the FIR of the incident by Rameshwar Dayal, Gulzari Lal, petitioner No. 6, had also reported to the police in his own way. 5. Prior to the lodging of the FIR of the incident by Rameshwar Dayal, Gulzari Lal, petitioner No. 6, had also reported to the police in his own way. His version was that on that day Rameshwar Dayal alongwith a number of other persons and with the help of two tractors, had started ploughing the land at Johar whereupon informant's uncle Bhata Ram, petitioner No. 11, reached there and asked them not to plough the `Johar' land in respect of which there was a stay order from the court. But the complainant party did not heed to request and proceeded to assault him. During the meanwhile other petitioners and a large number of villagers reached there. The complainant party attacked upon them with gun, stones, lathies spears etc. On Rameshwar's investigation his son Leela Ram @ Sukhbir shot at Gheesa Ram and Rohtash with his gun causing fatal injuries to them. Birbal, deceased, allegedly got crushed by the wheel of the tractor, and injuries to several other persons on villagers side were also caused. Crime No. 211/92 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336 and 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act was registered on the basis of the report lodged by Gulzari petitioner and a number of the members of prosecution party were charge-sheeted for those offences. 6. The police report Under section 173 Cr.PC against the petitioners was submitted in the court of the Magistrate on 4.9.92 and after conducting the necessary formalities the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge on 17.10.92 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge on 26.7.93 for disposal according to law. By that time charges had not been read over to the petitioners. On 19.9.94 Rameshwar Dayal complainant moved an application for permission of the court to produce certain documents in support of prosecution case. This application was allowed on 22.2.95 and the documents sought to be produced by Rameshwar Dayal complaint were permitted to be taken on record of the case. Thereafter the learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard the parties for framing charge against the petitioners. The prosecution party appears to have stressed that charge for offence Under section 447 IPC as well be framed against the petitioner. Thereafter the learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard the parties for framing charge against the petitioners. The prosecution party appears to have stressed that charge for offence Under section 447 IPC as well be framed against the petitioner. Accepting such an argument of the prosecution party in his order dated 6.9.95 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed the following order in that behalf : " pktZ ds LVst ij ekeys dh xgjkbZ esa u tkdj bruk ns[kuk gksrk gS fd izFke n`"V~;k ekeyk curk gS ;k ughaA D;ksafd bl ekeys esa V~k;y gksuk ckdh gS] i=koyh esa tks lk{; ekStwn gS mlds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) izFke"V~;k ekeyk /kkjk 446 (sic 447) vkbZ0ih0lh0 dk curk gSA " 7. It is that part of trial court's order dated 6.9.95 which has been very seriously challenged by the petitioners and very enthusiastically defended and supported by the prosecution party. 8. Mr. M.R. Mitruka, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that not only that on investigation the police had found no case Under section 447 IPC and accordingly did not make a report in that respect to the Magistrate concerned and neither the Magistrate Under section 190(1)(b) nor the Sessions Judge Under section 193 Cr.PC took cognizance of that offence in this case but also that the police report Under section 173 and the material alongwith such report did not disclose the commission of any offence Under section 447 IPC. The learned counsel took me through the site-map, the statements of witnesses recorded Under section 161 Cr.PC and the entries in the relevant revenue record and emphasised that no piece of evidence disclosed that the character of the land of Khasra No. 407 was ever changed from `Gain Mumkin Johar' to that of cultivable land and/or that the incident took place on the land allegedly allotted to and in possession of Rameshwar Dayal and others. Mr. Mitruka further submitted that as per Sections 227/228 Cr.PC the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith are to be considered for arriving at the conclusion that there exist sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and those provisions do not visualise the consideration of such other material which was not forwarded by the police Under section 173 or permission to produce them later on was not sought by the police. Mr. Mr. Mitruka further submitted that the intention attributable to the petitioner for commission of an offence Under section 447 IPC is also required to be read in the context of asserting of their rights by the petitioners and villagers at large to use the disputed land as a public land and that the said land was tried to be ploughed by the prosecution party in violation of the stay order issued by a court. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for Rameshwar Dayal complainant, supporting the impugned order tooth and nail, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly spoke that the prosecution party had been in possession of the allotted land of Khasra No. 407 since long and since the petitioners had entered into such land to forcefully dispossess them, they had committed the offence punishable Under section 447 IPC as well. It was further submitted by them that at the time of framing charge against the petitioners the learned Sessions Judge could have framed a charge for such offence also the commission of which was not though reported by the police to him but which was disclosed by the documents submitted by the police alongwith the report Under section 173 Cr.PC and by such other. evidence as was placed before him subsequent to the submission of the police report. 10. Ordinarily, this court, in exercise of its powers under Section 397 Cr.PC does not interfere with an order framing charge by a Sessions Judge after hearing the parties unless a glaring injustice staring this court in the face is noticed by it. It is well settled proposition of law that meticulous examination of the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police in the course of investigation and of the documents submitted alongwith the police report is not permissible at the stage of framing charge against the accused Under section 228 Cr.PC or discharging him Under section 227 Cr.PC. Truth, veracity and effect of the evidence is not to be judged at that initial stage. At that stage of the proceedings the Sessions Judge is to consider only the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith with the sole purpose of deciding prima facie whether it should proceed with the trial or not. Truth, veracity and effect of the evidence is not to be judged at that initial stage. At that stage of the proceedings the Sessions Judge is to consider only the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith with the sole purpose of deciding prima facie whether it should proceed with the trial or not. The words `upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' occurring in the language of Section 227 and the words "after such consideration" used in Section 228, in fact indicate that at that stage of the proceedings neither an accused nor the prosecution can legally insist upon summoning some evidence, oral or documentary, favourable to the accused, or as the case may be to the prosecution.Such a proposition seems of fit in the scheme of Chapter XVIII relating to trials before a court of Sessions. Section 225 mandates that every trial before the Sessions Court shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor then, Section 226 lays down that when the accused appears or is brought before the court in pursuance of commitment of the case under Section 209, the Prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. It is to be taken note of that in trials before it in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the case in pursuance of the commitment of a case. Therefore, the Prosecutor can refer to such evidence only to prove the guilt of the accused as is available on the record of the case committed by the Magistrate Under section 209 Cr.PC. The word `evidence' used in the language of Section 226 refers to such statements of facts as are contained in the statements recorded and documents prepared and/or collected during the course of investigation and/or enquiry of the case. Such an interpretation of the word `evidence' used in Section 226 is in consonance with the scheme underlying the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 11. If the case, received in Sessions Court on commitment, was instituted on a complaint, proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Section 202 Cr.PC obliged the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath in the course of inquiry Under section 202(1). 11. If the case, received in Sessions Court on commitment, was instituted on a complaint, proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Section 202 Cr.PC obliged the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath in the course of inquiry Under section 202(1). That means that before the commitment of the case Under section 208 Cr.PC the Magistrate was required to obtain all the evidence, oral and documentary, from the complaint and, on commitment of the case, to forward all such record of the case alongwith the documents obtained by him to the Court of Sessions. Similarly, if the cast was instituted on the basis of police report submitted under Sections 170/173 Cr.PC, then the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith would comprise of the statements of the witnesses recorded, documents prepared and/or collected by Investigating agency in the course of investigation of the case. In such cases, it needs to be noted, Section 173(8) permits the Investigating agency even after submitting a report Under section 173(2) to further investigate an offence and collect further evidence, oral or documentary and to forward such evidence alongwith its further report to the Magistrate. The method and manner for bringing such further evidence, oral or documentary, on the record of the case, as. was not earlier brought on such record, has been clearly indicated. It, therefore, logically follows that the Prosecutor has to necessarily confine himself at the time of opening his case under section 226 Cr.PC to such evidence only as is available on the record of the case and in the documents submitted therewith.It may totally spoil the very scheme of the Code and may frustrate the object of speedy trial of Sessions Cases, if the Prosecutor or, as the case may be, the accused is given a right to produce evidence, oral or documentary, in support of guilt or innocence of the accused at the stage of Section 226, 227 or 228 Cr.PC. Such a right would in fact, be quite unnecessary as at that stage of the proceedings the Sessions Court, as stated above, is to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith with the sole purpose of deciding prima facie whether it should proceed with the trial or not. Such a right would in fact, be quite unnecessary as at that stage of the proceedings the Sessions Court, as stated above, is to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith with the sole purpose of deciding prima facie whether it should proceed with the trial or not. Once it has decided to proceed with the trial of the accused on certain specific charges framed by him, the prosecutor, on sufficient cause being shown that it is necessary to do justice between them, may be permitted to bring on record of the case such additional evidence, oral or documentary, as was not there on the record of the case and in the documents submitted therewith at the stages of Sections 226, 227, 228 Cr.PC. The accused, of course, has a statutory right to produce such evidence in the case as he considers it necessary for his defence and it is relevant to the issues involved therein. In my opinion, such an interpretation of the word `evidence' occurring in Section 226 and of the words "record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" used in the language of Section 227 is in conformity with the object of speedy trial of Sessions Cases underlying Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of this position of the documents sought by Rameshwar Dayal and permitted by the learned Sessions Judge to be brought on record before opening the case Under section 226 Cr.PC by the Prosecutor and framing charges Under section 228 Cr.PC are required to be excluded from consideration of the justification of framing charge for offence Under section 447 IPC against the petitioners. It in the instant case, on the basis of the FIR lodged by Rameshwar Dayal the police had registered the case for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 447 IPC. On investigation of the case, however, the police found hat no offence Under section 447 IPC was committed in the case. The police thus submitted a negative report in that behalf. Prima facie, the documents submitted alongwith the police report supported such a conclusion by the police. In the site-map the place of occurrence was shown as part on `Johar' land. In the various memos and the Panchayatnama it was stated that blood stains and the dead bodies were found in and seized from `Johar' land. Prima facie, the documents submitted alongwith the police report supported such a conclusion by the police. In the site-map the place of occurrence was shown as part on `Johar' land. In the various memos and the Panchayatnama it was stated that blood stains and the dead bodies were found in and seized from `Johar' land. On being examined Under section 161 Cr.PC Rameshwar Dayal, Chotely Lal, Indraj, Hari Ram, Umrao, Bhata Ram, Radhey Shyam, Gurudayal, Bodau Ram, Girdhari, Beg Raj, Hanuman, Ramji Lal and Phoola Ram, are alleged to have stated that after having arranged two tractors and armed with weapons like gun, the prosecution witnesses had gone to plough the land in the Johar and when they were ploughing such land, he petitioners reached there and attacked upon Birbal deceased with farshi, axe and lathies whereupon Birbal had fired two shots, that during the meanwhile a large number of villagers rushed to the place of occurrence and seeing them approaching the prosecution witness ran away with the tractors. The statements of these witnesses did not, prima facie, indicate that an offence Under section 447 IPC was committed by the petitioners. The documents filed alongwith the police report included extracts from revenue record and the entries made therein referred to the land of Khasra No. 448 (old No. 407) as `Johar' vested in State Government. In Khatauni for Samvat year 2031 to 2037. 12 Bighas of khasra No. 448 was shown mutated in the name of Rameshwar Dayal without indicating the necessary particulars regarding location thereof. In Khasra Girdawri for Samvat year 2046 to 2048 the entire land of Khasra No. 448 was shown as `PARAT' (lying Instant). All such material made "the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" at the time of commitment of the case by the Magistrate to the court of Sessions and at the time of consideration of the material by the learned Sessions Judge Under section 226/228 Cr.PC for the purposes of putting the petitioners on trial. Since the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith disclosed no commission of the offence Under section 447 IPC by the petitioners no charge for that offence could have been framed against them at that stage of the proceedings. 12. Since the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith disclosed no commission of the offence Under section 447 IPC by the petitioners no charge for that offence could have been framed against them at that stage of the proceedings. 12. Even if the documents filed by Rameshwar Dayal before the learned Sessions Judge be considered for the purpose of framing charge Under section 447 IPC against the petitioners, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order. Of the 19 documents filed by him about 14 or 15 related to the copies of the FIRs and complaint filed by Rameshwar Dayal and party from time to time against several villagers including the petitioner and rest of the documents were the copies of the revenue record and orders passed by the Revenue Courts in the course of proceedings before them. These documents showed that the parties were in litigation before criminal and revenue courts over the land allotted to Rameshwar Dayal out of `Johar's' land. It is not borne out from them that the place whereupon the incident had taken place was or was not the same which had been so allotted to him. Above all, in the background of the case an entry by the petitioners on such land could be considered as an entry in the assertion of their rights to use that land as a public land. 13. To conclude, the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith disclosed, at the stage of framing charge Under section 228, offence Under section 447 IPC and, therefore, the impugned order is bad to that extent and is set aside. Accordingly charge Under section 447 IPC as framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the petitioners is hereby quashed and the petitioners discharged of the same. It would, however, be open to the trial Judge to add to, alter, amend or modify the charges framed by him at any stage of the trial, if the evidence coming before him in the course of trial demands and justifies such an action by him. 14. The case records of the two Sessions cases be sent back forthwith to the trial court. The trial court is directed to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible.Revision Allowed. *******