BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated September 15, 1990 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilara, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused Babu Lal for offences under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C.

(2.) BHANWAR Lal complainant, on August 2, 1987, lodged a First Information Report at the Police Station, Bilara against accused Babu Lal, mentioning therein that he owns a house in Mohalla Chandawaton -Ka in Bilara. Behind his house, there is a land, which is in his possession and which is enclosed by stoneslabs and a door has, also, been installed there. Accused Babu Lal came there, broke the stone -slabs and unlawful took possession of the same. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The police, after necessary investigation, presented a challan against the accused under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. After presentation of the challan, accused Babu lal was tried for offences under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced PW 1 Bhanwar Lal, PW 2 Chetan Prakash, PW 3 Virendra, PW 4 Upendra, PW 5 Jaffar Ali and PW 6 Jagmal Singh. The accused examined himself as DW 1, and also, produced Khema Ram DW 2 and Mishri Lal DW 3. The learned Magistrate, after trial, came to the conclusion that from the evidence on record, it is proved that the plot in question was in possession of the accused Babu Lal and he was the owner of this plot of land, which stands proved from the documents EX. D1, EX. D2, EX. D3 and EX D4. The complainant has no documents in his possession, fro which it could be gathered that the complainant is the owner of this plot. The learned Magistrate, therefore, after closely scrutinizing the evidence and discussing the same, acquitted the accused Babu Lal for offence under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. It is against this order that the complainant has filed this revision petition. The State has not preferred any appeal.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate has properly considered the evidence on record and after a careful consideration of the evidence on record, he has rightly arrived -at the conclusion that the land in question belongs to the accused Babu Lal and it was in his possession. I, myself, have gone -through the evidence on record. The findings arrived -at by the learned lower Court is perfectly just and proper and it does not require any interference. In the present case, when the evidence produced by both the parties clearly show that the accused Babu Lal was the owner of the land in question and the State has not challenged the findings arrived -at by the learned Court by way of filing appeal, then in a revision -petition, filed on behalf of the complainant, no interference can be made. The criminal proceedings are not meant to wreck the personal vengience of the parties.