LAXMI SAH Vs. BINDESHWAR CBAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision by the petitioners, eight in number, for setting aside the order dated 27-4-1979 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, by which he had taken cognizance ' against 11 persons including these eight petitioners under sections 147, 323 and 379, I.P.C,

(2.) The opposite party, Bindeshwar Cbaudhary, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, alleging that, on 31-12-1978, 11 persons arrayed as accused, which included the eight petitioners along with 15 to 20 persons formed an unlawful assembly, went upon plot no 183 of Khata no. 58 of village Atwarpur having an area of 26 decimal and dishonestly cut and removed the sugarcane crop grown thereon by the petitioners putting him to a loss of Rs. 1600. The opposite-party protested at which Laxmi Sah, petitioner no. 1, caught hold of him and the other accused assaulted him with fists and slaps and kept him confined for two hours. This complaint was - filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8-1-1979. He examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and then referred the matter for enquiry to the officer-in-charge, Bochacha Police Station, who reported that a prima facie case was made out against tbe accused persons. This report was put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27-4-1979 and on the same date ho passed the impugned order and transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Shri R. K. Rai, for disposal. Out of the 11 persons arrayed as accused in the complaint case, only the eight petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for quashing the criminal proceeding stated against them in the complaint case.

(3.) The contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first was that the delay in the filing of the complaint on 8-1-1979 in spite of the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 31-12-1978 showed the mala fide character of the complaint and as such the complaint should have been dismissed. The other contention raised was that petitioner no. 1 having been entrusted by the Anchaladhikari, Bochaha to get the sugarcane crop harvested and keep it in safe custody, no offence can be said to have been made out against petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 1 being the Sarpanch no cognizance should have been taken against him without the previous sanction required by section 84-A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII of 1948). These contentions were refuted by the learned counsel for the opposite-party.