1. - The appellant has preferred instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 25.7.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh, whereby, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and passed sentence for three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant Sint. Mangi Bai who belongs to Scheduled Caste community in the Court of Additional Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 17.2.1992 in which it is alleged by her that appellant and his son Ashraf committed theft of standing crop of her agricultural field, therefore, action may be. taken against them. The concerned Magistrate sent the said complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Rathanjna, Village Gadola, District Chittorgarh. Upon receiving the said complaint, the Police Station Rathanjna, District Chittorgarh registered a case for offence under Sections 379, 4471.P.C. and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act of 1989') against appellant and his son and commenced the investigation.

3. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh from where case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh for trial. The trial Court commenced the trial and recorded statements of 10 prosecution witnesses, thereafter the statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and in defence, two witnesses DW-1 Allah Rakha, DW-2 Balu were produced before the Court by the accused-appellant.

4. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 25.7.1996 whereby the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989.

5. While assailing the validity of the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that gross error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 because bare perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant (Ex.P-7) reveals that no offence under Sections 379, 447 I.P.C. or 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 is made out. The complainant herself admitted in the complaint that land in question from where the allegation of theft of standing crops is levelled by her against the appellant, is belonging to the accused-appellant himself but not only the Investigating Officer but the trial Court completely ignored the said fact and gave finding that appellant is guilty of committing offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 for which there is no allegation. While inviting attention towards the complaint Ex.P-7 and statement of complainant Mangi Bai, PW-1, it is vehemently argued that in both the documents, there is no disclosure where the land of complainant is situated and what is the Khasra number of her land upon which she is in possession. The bald allegations are pleaded against the appellant without any evidence but while pleaded against deciding the case, the trial Court completely overlooked the said fact and illegally convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. Therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no documentary evidence produced on recorded by the complainant to prove that the land in question belongs to her or she is in possession. Th