The court upheld the rights of the respondents over the purchased land and found that the charges under sections 430 and 447, I. P. C. were not proved due to the well being damaged and not in use for the villagers.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Rajendra pandey has preferred this appeal against the order of Acquittal dated 16-12-2002, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in compliant Case No. 324 of 1999 (T. R. No. 102 of 2002) whereby and whereunder, the learned Court below has acquitted respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the charges u/s. 430 and 447, I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE case of the complainant-petitioner is that the respondents trespassed the land situated in Khata No. 91 and Plot No. 979 having an area of 0. 01 decimal in which Well was excavated by his ancestors. It (well) was in use for drinking water and irrigation purpose but the respondents demolished the well and construct wall of the tank of latrine on it.

( 3 ) THE respondents in course of trial took plea that the land was purchased by them from Shiv Prasad Pandey under registered sale deed in which there was an old Well. Since last ten years it was not in use and was damaged as is evident from the order passed u/s. 147 Cr. P. C. by Executive magistrate, Chatra in Case No. 49 of 1999. Due to passage of time the Well was damaged and in a family partition that portion was given in the share of Shiv Prasad Pandey, who under registered sale deed No. 1728 dated 25th April, 1997 sold the land to the second party Mayawati Devi. The second party (respondents herein/accused in the court below) started construction of latrine wall, which was objected by the complainant (appellant herein) resulting filing of the complaint Case.

( 4 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate in complaint Case No. 324 of 1999 recorded the evidence of witnesses produced by the omplainant C. W. No. 1 is Baneshwar pandey, C. W. 2 is Kihori Prasad whereas C. W. 3 Rajendra Pandey is the Complainant. C. W. 1 has deposed that the complaint rajendra Pandey is his brother. At the time of alleged occurrence, none of villagers was at the place of occurrence. After purchase the respondents gave boundary walls on the plot in question, the Well which was damaged was filled up with sand. The learned judicial Magistrate found after considering the evidence of the witnesses produced by the complainant that the portion of the land was already sold to the opposite parties. Respondents after purchase have got the rights over that plot, hence Section 447, I. P. C. is not attracted. Similarly Section 430 regarding mischief by restraining the complainant in taking water for drinking purpose, also could not be proved as the Well was damaged since last ten years and was not in use of the villagers. Had it been the case for public use for taking water, the villagers would have assembled there as they are also beneficiaries in taking water for drinking purpose. But the learned Judicial magistrate found that no one villager went to place of occurrence, rather they were looking through their windows and doors.

( 5 ) IN view of this fact, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of acquittal, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Complaint Case No. 324 of 1999 which does not require any interference. In view of this fact at the very stage of admission, acquittal appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

--- *** ---

.