Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 October, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 788 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.10.2012.
Amrit and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate
for the petitioners
Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana
Mr. Lovesh Puri, Advocate for
Mr. Anil Ksheterpal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL)
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari whereby he affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 9th, 2004 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhari in a complaint case titled Satya Devi Vs. Amrit and others vide which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine In default 427 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.1,000/- SI for 3 months 447 IPC RI for 3 months Rs.500/- SI for 1 month 506 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.500/- SI for 2 months
2. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Satya Devi filed the aforesaid complaint alleging that her husband (since deceased) and husband's brother- Raghunath were in possession of agriculture land measuring 12 kanals 2 marlas comprising in Khasra No.37//24 (8-0), 25 (4-2) situated at village Fatehgarh, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 were members of the Gram Panchayat of CRR No. 788 of 2012 (2) Fatehgarh. Yash Pal-petitioner No.3 was son of Ranjit Singh, the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Balbir Singh and Hans Raj
-petitioners No 5 and 6 along with six others came to the spot on tractors and destroyed the crop standing on the fields and as such, she suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioners also caused injuries to her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant failed to prove that her husband and husband's brother were in the possession of the land in question. The land belongs to Gram Panchayat, Fatehgarh. It was leased out to Balbir Singh on May 7th, 1996 in an open auction. Meaning thereby on the date when the alleged occurrence took place as per the complainant, Balbir Singh-petitioner no.5 was in possession of the land. So, question of causing damage to the crop by the petitioners did not arise. The complainant also could not prove that she was given beatings, as alleged, because there was no medical evidence in support thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgements passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana (Annexuxre P-1), Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari (Annexure P-3) and the judgement dated September 29th, 2011 passed by District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. For ready reference, observation of the District Judge in his aforesaid judgement reads as under:-
"10. Anyhow, for the sake of arguments, if it is taken that the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 produced by the defendants cannot be taken into consideration, even then it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land on 21.3.1997 the date when the present suit was filed because there is no document on the file which could suggest that on that date any of the plaintiffs was in possession thereof. In this case, we are not to see the ownership, it being a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter but only the possession. Undisputedly, the defendant Gram Panchayat had CRR No. 788 of 2012 (3) moved an application for correction of entries in Khasra Girdawari in favour of the Gram Panchayat with respect to the suit land in the court of AC II Grade, Jagadhari against Raghunath, the present plaintiff and Mehma Singh, the Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.2 to 5 which was accepted on 19.3.1997. In para No.11 of their plaint, the plaintiffs have admitted the passing of this order on 18.07.1997 (in fact, 19.3.1997). This order undisputedly was upheld by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 28.08.1997 as is also clear from Ex. PC which is the copy of order dated 17.8.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt., because before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt., the orders dated 19.03.1997 and 28.8.1997 passed by the AC II Grade, Jagadhari and the Collector, Yamuna Nagar, respectively, were set aside by holding that the suit land was in possession of the plaintiffs. However, the original of Ex. PC i.e. Order dated 17.8.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. was set aside by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana in ROR No.28 of 1998-99 on 1.3.2000 and the said order of the Financial Commissioner was reported as Gram Panchayat, Fatehgarh Vs. Satya Devi and others 2000 (2) OLJ 158 by holding that the plaintiffs were out of possession and the Gram Panchayat had leased out the suit land in auction in which the plaintiffs had also participated. It was further held therein that the Assistant Collector II Grade, Jagadhari, after spot inspection and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat had been leasing out this land on Patta. This judgement of the Financial Commissioner can be looked into in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs. CRR No. 788 of 2012 (4) Machado Brothers & others AIR 2004, Supreme Court 2093. Thus, from this judgement of the Financial Commissioner, it is clearly made out that, in fact, the suit land was being leased out by the Gram Panchayat in which the plaintiff Raghu Nath and Mehma Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 had participated in the auction by the Gram Panchayat at the time of leasing out this land. Thus, had the plaintiffs been in possession of the suit as co-sharers or as tenants at the time of filing of the present suit, then it could be said that they were entitled to the decree of permanent injunction but this is not the position because if we go through Ex. PE which is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, it is clear that the suit land was in possession of the Gram Panchayat, Fatehgarh through the lessee. From Ex. PF which is the copy of Khasra Girdawari, it is clear that w.e.f. Rabi 1993, the Panchayat was in possession of this land through its lessees."
5. The Appellate Court did not consider the judgments passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Civil Court because the complainant party filed an appeal against the judgement of the Civil Court and the same was pending adjudication. Not only that, with regard to the same piece of land which was the bone of contention of the present case, Ragunath brother of the husband of the complainant lodged an FIR No.65 dated March 11th, 1997 under Section 323, 325, 379 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station Jagadhari against Balbir Singh
-petitioner No.5, his wife and other family members. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari by judgment dated October 15th, 2001 (Annexure P-2) acquitted the accused. It was observed in the judgement that Raghunath-complainant (PW-1) admitted that on 5th July, 1996 the land in question was being cultivated by Balbir Singh -petitioner No.5.
CRR No. 788 of 2012 (5)6. With this overwhelming evidence on record, it is proved to the hilt that on the date of alleged occurrence, the complainant, her husband and husband's brother were not in possession of the land. Since, they were not in possession of the land so, question of destroying the crop by the petitioners does not arise.
7. In view of the above, this revision petition is accepted. The judgements passed by the Courts below are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted. The amount of fine deposited by the petitioners shall be refunded to them by the trial Court after due identification and proper receipt.
5.10.2012. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE