Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 151 (MP)

RAMHIT PATEL v. GAVI

2004-02-12

S.K.PANDE

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) ARGUMENTS heard. Record of Cr. Case No. 341/98 Court of MFC, Amarpatan, perused. ( 2. ) PETITIONER/complainant Ramhit Patel filed complaint under Sections 147,447,427/149 of IPC before the MFC, Amarpatan to the effect that complainant being owner was in possession of Khasra No. 1594 Village Bhisampur. On 20-7-98 respondent/accused persons unlawfully entered into the said land (Bageecha) and removed the plantation. Criminal Case no. 341/98 accordingly was registered against accused persons. Completing trial, vide impugned judgment dated 18-7-2003, MFC recorded acquittal of respondent/accused persons under Sections 147,447,427/149 of IPC. Further under Section 250, Cr. PC directed petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- compensation to each of the respondent/accused persons. ( 3. ) IT is contended that acquittal of respondent/accused persons has been recorded mainly on the ground that material witnesses were not examined. On 2-5-2003, petitioner requested the Court to adjourn the case for examination of Ram Narayan and Bhondulal. However, request was refused and the case of the petitioner was closed. ( 4. ) IT is clear from the order dated 2-5-2003 passed by MFC in Cr. Case No. 341/98 that Ramnarayan and Bhondulal were not cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses filed with the complaint. The complaint was filed on 21-7-98. The request of the petitioner on 2-5-2003 to summon additional witnesses, not named in the list of witnesses, was rightly rejected. Respondent/accused persons are also recorded owner of Khasra No. 1594 area 1. 30 acres Village Bhisampur. As per statement of Bhola Prasad (P. W. 2), the aforesaid land is family cremation ground, locally known as Bageecha. The alleged partition of the year 1997-98 as set up by the petitioner, was not proved and on the basis of Khasra entries, the respondent/accused persons were also co-owners in possession of the disputed land. On the basis aforesaid, acquittal of respondent/accused persons under Sections 147,447,427/149was recorded. The acquittal aforesaid can not be said to be improper or without evidence. ( 5. ) THE case of the respondent/accused persons was that they have been falsely prosecuted by petitioner/complainant. At the time of hearing of final arguments on 17-7-2003 the petitioner was present and heard. On 18-7-2003 at the time of pronouncement of judgment also petitioner/complainant was present. In the circumstances, in the matter of awarding compensation under Section 250 of Cr. PC a separate proceeding and issuance of notice to the petitioner/complainant was not necessary. At the time of hearing of final arguments on 17-7-2003 the petitioner was present and heard. On 18-7-2003 at the time of pronouncement of judgment also petitioner/complainant was present. In the circumstances, in the matter of awarding compensation under Section 250 of Cr. PC a separate proceeding and issuance of notice to the petitioner/complainant was not necessary. ( 6. ) CONSEQUENTLY, petition under Section 378 (4), Cr. PC for leave to appeal fails and is dismissed. M. Cr. C. dismissed.