Devi Deen Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7601 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 10.01.2023
 
Delivered on 16.03.2023
 
Court No. - 77
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1997 of 2007
 
Revisionist :- Devi Deen Singh And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Birendra Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2007, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba in Special Case No.81 of 1998 (State vs. Devi Deen Singh and others) under Section 198-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, whereby the revisionists/accused have been convicted under Section 198-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 3(1)(iv), (v) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to six month R.I. along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 198-A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and six month R.I. along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, under section 3(1)(iv) (va) SC/ST Act and in default of payment of fine, revisionists/accused have to undergo three months further imprisonment.

3. According to prosecution version, the opposite party No.2/informant has lodged the first information report of this case on 02.11.1992 against revisionists/accused alleging that he is recorded ''Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights' in respect of Gata No.381/391 and his nephew Kishori Lal is also Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in respect of Gata No. 277 and 392 and they have sown crop of ''Arhar' in the said land but in the year 1992 the accused persons did not allow them to sow the crop in that land. It appears that after investigation, Police have submitted charge-sheet against revisionist accused persons.

4. The accused persons were charged by the trial Court for offences under Section 198-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 3(1)(iv) and (v) SC/ST Act. In prosecution evidence, the prosecution has examined four witnesses, including P.W.1 Hari Singh, P.W.2 Saiyad Hasan Ahmad, P.W.3 Lekhpal Bala Prashad and P.W.4 Constable Milap Chandra and some documents were also produced. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein, they have denied the incident and stated that regarding disputed land a case was pending and that the Consolidation Officer and the DDC have already pronounced the judgment in their favour and that there was order of injunction at the time of alleged incident. In defence evidence, they have filed copies of certain revenue records and orders of the Court. After hearing the matter, the Trial Court convicted the revisionists/accused under Section 198-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 3(1)(iv) (v) SC/ST Act and sentenced as stated above.

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionists that impugned judgment and order is against facts and evidence and thus, liable to be set aside. The statements of prosecution witnesses are not reliable. Learned counsel has referred the statements of witnesses, examined before the Trial Court, and submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses and that their statements are thoroughly unreliable. It is further submitted that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is excessive. Alleged incident took place in the year 1992 and since then a period of about three decades has been passed. The revisionists/accused have already remained in custody for a few days. It was submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgement and order of conviction is liable to be set aside. Alternatively it was also submitted that the revisionists/accused may be sentenced to the period already undergone.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement, which is based on evidence and thus, this revision has no force.

7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

8. On perusal of record and considering statement of P.W.1. Hari Singh, it is apparent that informant and his nephew were lease-holders of the disputed land and they were recorded as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights but in the year 1992 the revisionists/accused persons took illegal possession over the said land and did not allow the complainant and his nephew to sow the crop in the disputed land. P.W.2 Saiyad Hasan Ahmad has also stated that on 01.11.1992 when he reached at the spot for enquiry, the possession of revisionists/ accused persons was found on the disputed land. Similar is the statement of PW-3 Bala Prashad, who is lekhpal of the area. It is not disputed that the informant is a member of scheduled caste and the accused persons do not belong to scheduled caste.

9. At this stage it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Section 198-A (2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which read as under:

"198-A. Restoration of possession to the allottes of Gaon Sabha or the Government lessee.

x x x x x

(2) Where any person, after being evicted under this section, re-occupies the land or any part thereof without lawful authority, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years but which shall not be less than three months and also with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees :

Provided that the Court convicting the accused may, while passing the sentence direct that the whole or such portion of the fine that may be recovered as the Court considers proper be paid to the allottee or lessee, as the case may be, ad damages for use and occupation."

10. From the above provision, it is apparent that for conviction under Section 198-A(2) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, it must be established that the accused were evicted from the possession of disputed land and thereafter, they re-occupied the said land or any part thereof without lawful authority. If a person, evicted from such land, re-occupies the land or part of the land without lawful authority, such person is liable to be convicted under Section 198-A(2) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 

11. In the instant matter there is absolutely no evidence to show that the revisionists/accused were ever evicted from the disputed land and thereafter they re-occupied the disputed land. The only allegation against the revisionists/accused is that they have interfered in the possession of informant and his nephew and did not allow them to sow crop in the disputed land. Though, the defence version of revisionists/accused that there was an order of status-quo in favour of the revisionists, was found incorrect and said civil case was decided against them but nevertheless, the above stated ingredients must be established for conviction under Section 198-A(2) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.

12. After perusing the record and considering the entire evidence, it is apparent that there is no evidence that the revisionists/accused were evicted from the disputed land and thereafter they re-occupied the disputed land and thus, the necessary ingredients of Section 198-A(2) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act are not established. It appears that the trial court did not consider the matter in correct perspective. The instant proceedings are of criminal revision hence, in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper that the matter be remanded back to the trial court  to consider the matter and to pass the judgement/order in accordance with law, after awarding opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

13. In view of aforesaid, the impugned judgement and order dated 03.07.2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to consider and decide the case in accordance with law.

14. The criminal revision is allowed in above terms.

Order Date :- 16.03.2023

Neeraj/Suraj