IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1426 of 2002 Date of Decision: February 11 2009 Harkishan Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S.Rapri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Respondents No. 2 to 11 were sent up for trial for an offence under Sections 379, 447, 34 of the Indian Penal (`IPC' for short) in F.I.R. No. 129 dated 16.10.1999 registered at Police Station Mahilpur. Vide impugned judgment dated 21.2.2002, they were acquitted of the charge framed against them by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur. Aggrieved by the same, complainant/petitioner Harkishan Singh has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, is as under:- “2. SHO Police Station Mahilpur presented the accused persons for trial under Sections 379/447/34 IPC. 3. Case was registered on the basis of private complaint. Crl. Revision No. 1426 of 2002 -2- The facts of the complaint are that Mahant Haridwar Giri who is Chela of Om Giri is owner in possession of 39 kanals-13 marlas situated in village Panjaura. On 15.6.98 he gave this land on `chakota' to Harkishan singh complainant at the rate of Rs.1700/-. On 8.6.99, the land was again given on `Chakota' at Rs.8500/- till 15.6.2k. It is alleged that accused No.1 Darshan Singh in connivance with Mahant Haridwar Giri started giving threats qua the possession of the land. Complainant filed a Civil Suit in the Court and status quo was granted. But during the night of 14/15.9.1999 all the accused in connivance with each other and in furtherance of their common object illegally trespassed into the land of complainant and cut and removed the maize crop of complainant. It was told to complainant by Budh Singh and Jeet Singh and complaint was made to police, but police illegally confined the complainant. Then on 20.9.99 an application was made to DSP Garshankar but no action was taken. Hence this complaint. 4. On filing of this private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, statement of complainant Ex.PF was recorded and under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., vide order Ex.PD the magistrate ordered the police to register the case. Police complied with the orders and presented the challan in the Court after completion of investigation and other formalities.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in acquitting respondents No. 2 to 11 of the charge framed Crl. Revision No. 1426 of 2002 -3- against them. Possession of the land in question was with the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 11 had trespassed into the land of the petitioner and cut and removed the maize crop on the night intervening 14/15.9.1999. Mahant Haridwar Giri (PW1) deposed that the Dera owns 39 kanal 13 marlas of land in village Panjaura. He used to look after the said land. On 15.6.1998, he gave the said land on `chakota' to Harkishan Singh at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per annum. Possession of land was also handed over to him. Petitioner, while appearing in the witness box as PW3, deposed that he had got the possession of the land on `chakota' from the Dera on 15.6.1998 vide Exhibit PA. Accused illegally trespassed into his land, cut and removed crop on 15.6.2000. Since police party did not take any action on his complaint, he filed a private complaint Exhibit PE. Ajit Singh (PW4) has corroborated the statement of complainant- Harkishan Singh. Bhupinder Singh (DW1) has deposed that in the year 1999, he was working as Tehsildar-cum-Registrar Garhshankar vide letter dated 3.6.1999 (Exhibit D1). The land of Dera Baba Udaygiri was auctioned in favour of Davinder Singh at the rate of Rs.3200/- per acre. The auction amount was deposited by Davinder Singh and Baldev Singh on 15.6.1999. He proved the relevant documents regarding the auction proceedings. In these circumstances, learned trial Court has held that as per the record, the Civil Court had appointed Tehsildar Garshankar, Darshan Singh and Sarpanch of village Panjaura to manage the affairs of the Dera as per Exhibit D2 to D4. Land was auctioned in favour of Davinder Singh on 9.6.1999. Incident had occurred on 14.9.1999. The order passed by the Crl. Revision No. 1426 of 2002 -4- Civil Court was reversed in appeal on 24.12.1998 but was confirmed on 27.5.1999 by this Court. After 27.5.1999, the trustees were having control and management of Dera including the land in question. However, the Apex court vide order dated 11.10.1999 set aside the order of this Court and order of the Lower Appellate Court granting stay was affirmed. The land was auctioned on 9.6.1999 as per the Court's order. While harvesting the crop the accused persons had impression that the land has been given to them in auction in terms of the order of the Civil Court. Hence, the intention of the accused persons was not dishonest. The said observation made by the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, call for no interference. The order of the Civil Court which had been upset by the Lower Appellate Court was confirmed by this Court on 27.5.1999. The order vide which the judgment of this Court was set aside and that of the Lower Appellate Court was affirmed, was passed by the Apex Court on 11.10.1999,whereas, the occurrence had allegedly taken place on the night intervening 14/15-6-1999. In these circumstances, the mens rea to convict theft cannot be attributed to respondents No. 2 to 11. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401(3) Crl. Revision No. 1426 of 2002 -5- of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned judgment of the trial Court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 11, 2009 arya