H.C.P.Tripathi, J. - (1.) This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, on appeal in a case under Section 379 I.P.C.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On September 5, 1963 the Gram Sabha of village Danpur decided to sell by auction a ruined Khandhar in the village. The auction was held on October 2, 1963 and the bid of Rs. 1,175/- made by respondent Tota Ram being the highest was accepted and he was required to pay one-fourth amount within four days. Respondent did not deposit the amount within the prescribed period and on October 6, 1963 he gave a notice (Exhibit Kha 1) to the village Pradhan raising certain objections and pointing out that he would not deposit the one-fourth amount till his objections were removed. The Pradhan immediately informed him in writing that he should have considered those points before making the bid and in accordance with the terms of the auction he should pay one-fourth amount of the bid immediately otherwise in default the land will go to the next bidder. Respondent took no action, did not deposit the one-fourth amount and from December 18, 1963 began cleaning the Khandhar and taking out bricks from there. According to the prosecution complainant asked him several times not to do so but without any effect. On December 24, 1963 complainant gave a notice (Exhibit Kha 1A) asking the respondent to desist from removing the bricks and causing loss to the property of the Gram Sabha. In response to this notice respondent alleged that he had already paid the one-fourth amount of the bid to the Pradhan on October 9, 1963 and that if he did not want the Khandhar to go to him he should return the amount. The Pradhan by his letter dated December 31, 1963 repudiated the allegation and again asked the respondent not to take out bricks from the Khandhar. But the respondent did not pay any heed to it. Ultimately on January 3, 1964 the Pradhan made an application to the Tehsildar complaining against the respondent on the basis of which a case was registered and after investigation the respondent was sent up for trial.
(3.) At the trial respondent pleaded not guilty and denied to have removed any bricks from the Khandhar. He also stated to have paid Rs. 297.75 np. to the Pradhan which represented one-fourth of the bid money and attributed his implication in the case due to enmity with him.;