JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by three appellants against the judgment of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, District Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.6/2006 dated 27.6.2006, whereby he convicted the accused appellants u/s. 420 IPC and sentenced each one of them to three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to further undergo six months' S.I. Each of them was also convicted under Section 3(1)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act" and sentenced to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to further undergo four months' S.I. 2. The charges against the accused appellants were that they obtained loan from Jaipur Nagaur Anchlik Gramin Bank, Branch Khajwana, District Nagaur on 20.6.2005 by mortgaging Khasra Nos. 3408 and 3409, which were already sold to complainant Pancha Ram, whereby they cheated complainant Pancha Ram, who was a member of the S.C./S.T. by interfering with the rights of a member of S.C. The report of the incident was lodged by complainant Pancha Ram at S.P.Office, Nagaur vide Ex.P.3, which was sent for investigation to the Circle Officer, Merta. After investigation, all the three accused were challaned u/ss. 420 IPC and Sec.3(1)(v) of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The statements of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC were recorded. They led no evidence in their defence. After hearing, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta convicted the accused appellants as above. 3. During this appeal, a compromise has been filed between the parties for the offence u/s. 420 IPC in which it is stated that the complainant Pancha Ram does not want to proceed further in the matter on account of mutual relations of the parties, whereby they have compromised. Since the offence u/s. 420 IPC is not compoundable straightway but can be compounded with the permission of the Court. Permission has also been sought, which is granted. The compromise has been verified between the parties today in the court itself, who are present in person. 4. Now remains the offence under Section 3 (1)(v) of the Act, which reads as under: "3. Permission has also been sought, which is granted. The compromise has been verified between the parties today in the court itself, who are present in person. 4. Now remains the offence under Section 3 (1)(v) of the Act, which reads as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." 5. Under the above provision, a person is said to have committed the offence, when he wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land or premises. This Section 3(1)(v) will come into operation; firstly, there must be a wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises and secondly, there must be interference with the enjoyment of rights over the land of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The present case is not the one of wrongful dispossession because according to the statement of complainant Pancha Ram himself, he was never dispossessed and still he is in possession of the field, which was sold to him by the accused party i.e. Khasra Nos. 3408 and 3409. Now the question remains is as to whether the accused have interfered with the enjoyment of his right over the land. In this regard, the allegation against the accused persons is that they obtained loan from Jaipur Nagaur Anchlik Gramin Bank, Branch Khajwana, District Nagaur under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme on the basis of simple mortgage. It is stated by Balkishan (PW 11), who was Manager of the Bank at the relevant time, that vide Ex. P.12, accused appellants mortgaged Khasra Nos. 3364, 3365, 3408 and 3409 i.e. 34 bighas and 8 biswas with 3/5 portion as mortgage. It is stated by Balkishan (PW 11), who was Manager of the Bank at the relevant time, that vide Ex. P.12, accused appellants mortgaged Khasra Nos. 3364, 3365, 3408 and 3409 i.e. 34 bighas and 8 biswas with 3/5 portion as mortgage. It is admittedly true that no mutation was entered in the name of complainant Pancha Ram till filing of this complaint and in this regard, the statement of Patwari viz; Radha Kishan (PW 4) is relevant, who has stated that as per the revenue record, the possession over Khasra Nos.3408 and 3409 was of Bhanwar Singh, Prem Singh and Madan Singh on account of there being no entry in the mutation. The Girdawari Ex.P.29 indicates that all the four fields including Khasra Nos. 3364 and 3365 were in the name of accused appellants. Their fault was that they signed the documents of the bank. There is a considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in case, the Bank advances a loan and mortgages certain documents, generally, the blank signatures are obtained of the loanee and thereafter on the basis of those documents, entries are made. Here, the mutation of the said four Khasras was in the name of the accused appellants till filing loan documents in the Bank including Khasra Nos.3408 and 3409, which were sold in favour of complainant Pancha Ram and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of interference with the enjoyment of his rights over the land. Had it been so, complainant Pancha Ram would have clearly stated in this regard in his statement recorded during trial as P.W.1. If at all, the offence is committed by the accused party, it is a technical one on account of the practice prevalent in the bank, while obtaining the signatures of the loanees. Under these circumstances, it cannot be a case falling under Sec.3(1)(v) of the Act, specially when the parties have compromised in the substantive offence u/s.420 IPC. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, District Nagaur, convicting the accused appellants for the offences u/s.420 IPC & Section 3(1)(v) of the Act is set aside and they are acquitted for the charge u/s.3(1)(v) of the Act, in addition to their acquittal u/s. 420 IPC on account of compromise arrived at between the parties. They are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal Allowed *******