Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This revision petition under Section 397 Cr. P.C. has been filed by four petitioners, namely, Mohan Lal, Rameshwar Lal, Han Ram and Rugha Ram (added accused persons under Section 319 Cr. P.C.) against the order dtd. 22/1/2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases, Bikaner passed in criminal case No. 31/2001 by which he allowed the application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. and further took cognizance for offence under Sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1)(V) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989) against the petitioners and they were ordered to be tried along with accused Jai Kishan.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances (i) That P.W.1 Jiya Ram filed a complaint (Ex. P/i) on 10-8-1999 before the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner against five persons, namely, Jai Kishan, Mohan Lal, Rameshwar Lal, Han Ram and Rugha Ram stating that these persons wanted to evict the complainant Jiya Ram (P.W.1) from his land and the complainant Jiya Ram (P.W.1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. It was further stated in the report (Ex. P/i) that on 7-8-1999, the added accused persons and Jai Kishan entered his field and abused P.W.1 Jiya Ram. (ii) That the complaint was sent to the Police Station, Napasar under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for investigation on 10-8-1999 where FIR No. 80/99 was registered for offences under Sections 352, 323 and 447 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and after investigation the police filed challan against Jai Kishan only for offence under Sections 3(1)(V) and 3(1)(X) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner. (iii) That charge for the offence under Sections 3(1)(V) and 3(1)(X) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atro-cities) Act was framed by the lear-ned Special Judge against accused Jai Kishan through order dtd. 13-10-2003 which was denied by the accused Jai Kishan and claimed trial. (iv) During trial, when statements of six witnesses had been recorded, P.W.1 Jiya Ram filed an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. on 6-12-200 1 and made a prayer that the cognizance for offence under Sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1)(V) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be also taken against the added accu-sed petitioners. (v) That the learned trial Court through impugned order dtd. 22/1/2002 accepted that application filed under Section 319 Cr. P.C. by P.W.1 Jiya Ram and took cognizance against the added accused petitioner for offence under Sections 3(1)(V) and 3(1)(X) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act inter alia holding (i) That no doubt witnesses P.W.5 Khema Ram and P.W.6 Gopala Ram have been declared hos-tile but since rest of the wit-nesses P.W.1 Jiya Ram, P.W.2 Kalu Ram, P.W.3 Anda Ram and P.W.4 Sukh Ram have stated that added accused petitioners were also present and were also involved in the commission of offence. (vi) Aggrieved from the order dated 22/1/2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, this revision petition has been filed by the added accused petitioners.
(3.) In this revision petition, the main case of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dtd. 22/1/2002 passed by the learned trial Court suffers from basic infirmity on the point that the learned trial Judge has not given any cogent reason as to how the present added accused petitioner were involved and further more statement of all the witnesses, namely P.W.1 Jiya Ram, P.W.2 Kalu Ram, P.W.3 Anda Ram and P.W.4 Sukh Ram are vague and therefore, cognizance was wrongly taken against the added accused petitioners.;