Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3753 (ALL)

DARYAB SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-19

RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.—List revised. None is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this criminal revision. However, learned A.G.A. is present. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.1.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1989 acquitting the appellants and reversing the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur dated 6.11.1989 convicting the opposite parties (accused) under Section 198-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short, ‘the Act’) for five months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that a written report Ex.Ka-1 was made by Daryab Singh to Tehsildar Shahabad alleging that Gram Samaj land was allotted to the complainant on patta and possession was delivered to him by the Kanoongo and Lekhpal with the aid of the police. The complainant claimed that appellants, namely, Ram Prasad, Ahmad Hasan, Din Dayal and Aram Singh alongwith one Bharat forcibly cut the crop of the said land and dispossessed him. On the basis of the application EX.Ka-1 dated 23.9.1982 an FIR was lodged by the Tehsildar, Shahabad, alleging that 1.20 acre of land was allotted to Daryab Singh and the said appellants forcibly dispossessed the complainant. The case was registered under Section 198-A of the Act at Police Station Shahabad on 19.10.1982. Investigation was conducted and after investigation a charge-sheet Ex.Ka-12 was submitted against the accused persons. Charges were framed against the said appellants and thereafter conviction was recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, an appeal was filed and the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused persons. Aggrieved against the order of appellate Court, the present revision has been preferred. 4. I have perused the record and find that the learned Appellate Court after assessing the oral and documentary evidence has rightly acquitted the appellants. The appellants never occupy the disputed land nor did they ever dispossessed the complainant from the land allotted to him. Aggrieved against the order of appellate Court, the present revision has been preferred. 4. I have perused the record and find that the learned Appellate Court after assessing the oral and documentary evidence has rightly acquitted the appellants. The appellants never occupy the disputed land nor did they ever dispossessed the complainant from the land allotted to him. The prosecution has failed to establish that the complainant was ever dispossessed by the appellants from the land allotted to him and also failed to establish that the complainant was ever evicted from the disputed land or possession to the complainant over the disputed land was ever given after evicting the appellants. In this way the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 198-A of the Act found to be not proved. 5. Apart from it, so far as the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnawwamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1962 AIR 1788, has held that : “it was open to a High Court in revision and at the instance of a private party to set aside an order of acquittal though the State might not have appealed. But such jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases, as where a glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error of law leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice has taken place. When Section 439 (4) of the Code forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, it is not proper that the High Court should do the same indirectly by ordering a retrial. It was not possible to lay down the criteria for by which to judge such exceptional cases. It was, however, clear that the High Court would be justified in interfering in cases such as (1) where the trial Court had wrongly shut out evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution, (2) where the appeal Court had wrongly held evidence admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible, (3) where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or the Court of appeal or, (4) where the acquittal was based on a compounding of the offence not permitted by law and cases similar to the above.” 6. Keeping all the facts and circumstances, the legal proposition as above mentioned, there is no merit in the revision. Keeping all the facts and circumstances, the legal proposition as above mentioned, there is no merit in the revision. A perusal of the file also reveals that this revision has not been admitted and this revision is also listed in the category of “Infructuous Cases”. Further I have perused the order of the Court below, which is just and legal and there is neither any perversity nor any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Moreso, the revisionist is also not present to press this revision. 7. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed both on merits and for want of prosecution. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. Let a certified copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for compliance.