( 1 ) THESE are two cases, one is an appeal by the Government against the acquittal of the respondents who were prosecuted under Section 3 (iv), U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1,947, and the other is a reference by the District Magistrate, Garhwal, for the enhancement of the sentence imposed on one Bhajan Singh under Section 3 (iv) of the said Act. Section 3 referred to above lays down :

"no person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any instrument or any custom or usage to the contrary. . . . . . (iv) make a bride or bridegroom belonging to a scheduled caste, alight from a dola-palki at any public place, road or pathway or prevent such dola-palki from passing through any such place, road or pathway. . . . . . "

( 2 ) ONE Gopal Singh, a shilpkar, belonging to a scheduled caste, resident of village Rain, was to be married to Smt. Darshani, sister of Thep Lal, in village Gwar, Patti Chalansyun, in the garhwal district, on 7-5-1950. On 3-5-1950, Gopal Singhs brother, Bharosey Lal, who was a clerk in the P. W. D. office, in Pauri-Garhwal, made an application to the Pradhan of the Group panchayat of village Gwar requesting him to see that there should be no dispute about their carrying the bridegroom in dola-palki. Another application was made by Gopal Singh himself to the Ilaqa Officer, Barahsyun, with the same object. The Ilaqa Officer ordered the Sub-Inspector of police station Srinagar to send a constable with the Barat party so that there may not be any disturbance. Accordingly on the date of the marriage, the Barat party proceeded from village rain to village Gwar with constable Bachi Singh as also with the Patwari Ghananand Dhandyal. When the marriage party was at a distance of one mile from village Gwar, they were stopped by one Bhajan Singh who said that the dola-palki could not be taken any further. The constable and the Patwari explained the matter to him and he kept quiet. The Barat proceeded further to the village. When they were near the village habitation one Belam Singh told them that his own barat was coming and that it might be allowed to pass before the Barat of Gopal Singh was to be taken by that route. According to the prosecution, certain villagers collected at the place and stopped the Barat from proceeding further unless the bridegroom got down from the palki. Brickbats were thrown at the Baratis and some damage to property was also done. The prosecution case was that the bridegroom had to alight from the dola-palki and go on foot to the house of the bride leaving the dola-palki outside the village. Consequently, Bhajan Singh and ten other persons were prosecuted. The Magistrate held that so far as the damage to the articles belonging to the Baratis and throwing of stones at them were concerned, nobody had been recognised and, therefore, nobody was guilty for those acts. He found that there was a custom in the village Gwar under which no one, whether belonging to a high caste or to a scheduled caste, could go through the village habitation in a dola-palki. He further found that Bhajan Singh did interfere with the Barat party a mile away from the village which he had no right to do, but that the other accused did not do anything except that they told the Barat party about the custom, whereupon the Baratis themselves agreed to observe the custom and the bride groom alighted from the dola-palki of his own accord and proceeded to the house of the bride on foot. The magistrate, therefore, convicted Bhajan Singh for having unnecessarily interfered with the Barat party and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-, and acquitted the other accused. Bhajan Singh appealed but his appeal was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE complainant, however, applied in revision both against Bhajan Singh and the other accused. He prayed for enhancement of sentence imposed on Bhajan Singh and for recommendation to the State Government to file an appeal against the order of acquittal of the other accused. The District