A.H. Khan, J. - (1.)THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Garoth passed in Cri. Apps. Nos. 120 -121 of 1949, on 11 -2 -1950, dismissing the appeals.
(2.)THE facts of the case briefly are that there was a fair near the Police outpost of Kaitha and the police was stationed there as usual. In the 'Mela' grounds, some brahmins were preparing their food in a chowka, and it happened that four Rajputs who are the accused in the case also arrived there and they also made preparations for cooking their food nearby. The Brahmins objected to this on the ground of nearness and this trivial incident was reported to the police. The Sub -Inspector was having a bath and so he deputed one bead constable Gajrasingh to get the matter settled and so he came on the spot. It may be safely assumed that some altercation took place and it is said that the head constable wanted Kanvarlal, one of the accused to accompany him to the Sub -Inspector, but the accused would not go. He resisted and it is alleged that he assaulted the head constable. Seeing this, a constable by name Sidhhanath came there and caught the hand of Kanvarlal, accused. In the meanwhile Dhanna accused also came there and he is said to have pushed and slapped Sidhhanath constable, and the situation assumed the form of melee. The Sub -Inspector also arrived on the sense and it is said that he rebuked Sidhhanath constable for his misbehaviour. The Rajputs (accused) who were said to be four in number then complained to the Sub -Inspector about their maltreatment by the head constable and the constable, and, in order to mollify them the Sub -Inspector told them that he will make an enquiry. The police did not take down the report, but to forestall them, the head constable made a report against the accused and a case under S. 353, Penal Code was recorded against them. Of the four accused, the trial Court acquitted one, convicted two (Dhanna and Kanwarlal) and sentenced them to 4 months rigorous imprisonment and the fourth accused absconded. This order was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge.
Now, there are two aspects of the case to which the learned Courts below have devoted insufficient amount of attention, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

(3.)FIRST is, that the F.I. Report is dated 12 -5 -1949, and it is by the head constable, and, the names of the accused were mentioned in it, and all of them were present on the spot, yet they were not arrested till about 1 1/2 month after the occurrence. The actual date of arrest is 26 -6 -1949. The question may be reasonably asked why did not the police at once arrest these people and why the arrest was made so late. The learned Government Advocate is unable to offer any explanation of the delay. Bat it seems that the accused first complained to the Sub -Inspector about the maltreatment, and, when they received no satisfaction, they reported the matter to the Praja Mandal and, things were then, of course, began to weave a different pattern. To me, it seems that the launching of this prosecution by the police, was by way of a counter -blast.
;