MOHINI KAPUR,J. - (1.) THE petitioners were convicted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas for various offences and their conviction has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas. Against this, they have preferred this revision.
(2.) THE dispute in the case revolves around Khasra No. 261 (old) in village Sheelpatta. This land originally belonged to one Bhuri Singh and it is alleged that he executed an agreement to sale in favour of the accused petitioners in or about the year 1970. However, he sold this land to the complainant party in the year 1972 by a registered sale deed. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties and proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. PC were taken and/suit was filed before Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate Kishangarhbas also from where the petitioners could not get a stay order in their favour. On 26.12.1974, an altercation took place between both the groups and cross FIR's were lodged by both the parties at Police Station Kot Kasim. Each party alleged that they were in possession of the field and they were cultivating it when the other party came and attacked and caused injuries. The complainant side was also tried and injuries caused by them were only bruises and abrasions hence they were convicted Under Section 323 IPC and released on probation. On the side of the present accused petitioners several persons were convicted who have come before this Court are aggrieved by their conviction and sentence and have preferred this revision. They have been convicted and sentenced as under: Name of Accused Under Sections. SentenceLai Singh 326 IPC 2 years R.I. Rs. 100/ -fine324 IPC 1 years R.I. Rs. 50/ - fine148 IPC 6 months R.I. Rs. 50/ - fine447 IPC Rs. 50/ - as fine only.In default in all 2 months further R.I.Budh Ram 325 IPC 2 years R.I. Rs. 100/ - fine323 IPC Rs. 100/ - as fine.In default 1 months R.I.447 IPC Rs. 50/ - as fine only.147 IPC Rs. 50/ -as fine only.In default 1 months R.I.Kalu 148 IPC Rs. 100/ -as fine.147 IPC Rs. 50/ -as fine.In default 1 months R.I.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land in dispute was in their possession and they were cultivating it as possession was handed over by Bhuri Singh after execution of the agreement for sale and they acted in self - defence of person and property when the other party came to attack and obstruct them. It has been pointed out that three persons on the side of accused received injuries. Besides, the right of private defence, it has been contended that the petitioners have suffered a long trial and that the petitioner No. 1, Lal singh is a teacher in Government service and his carrier will be effected by this case.;