M. L. SHRIMAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that Pannalal, a member of the Scheduled Tribe, Bheel by caste, was taken as 'pantidar' on the petitioner's field, situated in village Telni. Under the terms of agreement he was to cultivate the land for two years and get 50% of the produce. Twenty five quintals of wheat was produced during the first year. On different dates in the month of April, 1982, entire quantity of wheat, viz. , 25 quintals, was shifted to the house of the accused in Eklera town. Pannalal demanded from the petitioner his share in the agricultural produce taken by the accused. THE case of the complainant is that under false pretext the landlord postponed delivering the share, but later on he flatly refused to do so. Petitioner's case is that 25 quintals of wheat, produced in the field, cultivated by Pannalal, had been stored in the house of the accused, but 50% of the grain had not been given to him, as some amount had been due from Pannalal and the same had been adjusted towards such dues. It is urged that Pannalal gave a notice to the petitioner to deliver 50% of the food-grain, but he refused to fulfil his obligation and gave the land for cultivation to some other person. Faced with the situation of starvation and unemployment, Pannalal approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156, Cr. P. C. He did not approach the police at the initial stage as the accused is a member of the Municipal Board and had been previously holding important position in the Pancha-yat Samiti, he did not expect that justice would be done to him. No useful purpose could have been served had he first sought the help of the police. The application under Section 156, Cr. P. C. , was sent to the police for investigation by the learned Magistrate. It is feared that petitioner Chandmal, son of Shri Dhanmal, Mahajan by caste, who owns a shop in town Eklera and is a member of the Municipal Board, might be apprehended by the police. The petitioner approached two courts for grant of anticipatory bail. On the ground that a 'pantidar' is a partner and is not a tenant and if the property is retained by a partner, an offence of criminal breach of trust cannot be said to have been made out. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel. This fine distinction can be drawn at the time when the case comes for final arguments. The point which needs serious consideration is that the landowner, who claims himself to be the elected representative of people, even at the risk of arrest has not shown the good gesture of giving half the land's produce to the person who had actually cultivated the land. He could do so either before going to the Sessions Court or before coming to this Court, with the result that if the accused is granted anticipatory bail, nothing would be recovered from him and the person who has produced the crop will be left to starve. Seth Chandmal cannot be permitted to treat Pannalal as bonded labour. There is nothing on record to show that Chandmal holds a licence of money lending and if he is not a money lender, it is very difficult to understand how the amount has been adjusted. Section 104 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proceeds with non-obstante clause, it provides that the landholder shall not recover rent in kind exceeding one sixth of the gross produce. Section 105 of the Act reads as under:- "105. Higher rate of kind rent where landholder contributes to production - Where crop-sharing by landholders in contracted with sub-tenants or tenants of Khudkasht and the landholder contributes to the production of crops by sharing expenses on manuer and seed to the extent of fifty percent, the rents in kind recoverable in accordance with section 104 may extend to one-fourth of the gross produce : Provided that the contract of crop sharing under this section shall not be recognised by the revenue court unless such contract has been made under a registered deed by the landholder with the sub-tenant or tenant of Khudkasht. " Thus in no circumstance the landholder could have received more than one fourth of the gross produce. The recovery of more than one fourth of the gross produce itself is prohibited by law. No adjustment of amount can be made without the consent of the party. Examined from whatever angle, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. People placed in higher starta of life are expected to be compassionate towards the poverty stricken landless labour and they should not act like Shylock. It will not be small gain to the people, if they are made to understand that crimes have their silent tongue, which roars and echoes in the atmosphere and ultimately law takes its own course and opportunities of securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disability. The bail application under section 438, Cr. P. C. , is rejected. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge within two days. Any observation made in this order should not affect or influence the trial Court while judging the merits of the case at the stage of trial. .;