The judgment emphasizes the need for cautious exercise of revisional jurisdiction, especially on questions of law and factual appreciation, and the requirement for findings of fact to be based on relevant material and not to ignore contradictions and omissions in the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

1. Heard Sri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present and perused the material on record. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, even in the revised call.

2. The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred to set-aside the judgement and order dated 04.06.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 12, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2008 affirming the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kol, Aligarh in Case No. 17 of 2008, under Section 198-A(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein after referred as “U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act”) and sentenced the revisionist to undergo imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 23.07.2002 was lodged against the appellants Kishan Lal, Rajpal, Rajvir, Rajendra, Satya Prakash and one Nathi Lal (exonerated by the Investigating Officer) under Section 198-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, on the basis of an application which was moved before the District Magistrate, Aligarh stating that on 10.11.2001 the possession of Gata No. 99 M. Rakba 0.230 hectare of village Lodha, had been given to Dileep Chandra (deceased allottee). He retained the possession for a long time and maintained his family. But on being dispossessed by the accused persons, allottee (deceased) made a complaint to the Revenue Officers. On complaint, the Revenue Inspector, Roshan Lal went to the place on 23.10.2000 and gave the possession to the allottee (Dileep Chandra). Again, allottee had been dispossessed by the accused persons, on which again Revenue Inspector, Roshan Lal gave the possession to the allottee (Dileep Chandra) on 10.04.2001. Then on his information, first information report was registered at Police Station, Lodha. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, has exonerated accused Nathi Lal and submitted charge-sheet against the revisionists.

4. In order to prove the prosecution case, two witnesses have been examined PW-1 Roshan Lal (Revenue Inspector) and PW-2 Sukhram (son of the deceased allottee). After examining the prosecution witnesses, statement of the revisionists were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that the prosecution evidence is false and they had given evidence due to enmity and they wanted to usurp the land of the revisionists. The revisionists have examined DW1 Ranvir Singh (Ex Village Pradhan).

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the findings recorded by the trial court as well as appellate court are perverse and the prosecution has not proved the case against the revisionists. There is no evidence with regard to proving the dispossession of the allottee. No damage had been ascertained against the revisionists by the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that witness of dispossession letters (dakhalnama) have not been summoned. PW-1, who prepared the alleged possession letters (dakhalnama) was not the competent authority.

6. It is further submitted that there is no finding with regard to the fact that any order for eviction was passed by Assistant Collector as per Section 198-A(1) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case, the son of the allottee was not in possession of the land in question. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution with regard to the fact that Dileep Chandra (deceased) was an allottee of the land in question.

7. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction between the statement of (PW-1) and (PW-2) with regard to possession of the land in question. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged on the basis of an order passed by the SSP, Aligarh on complaint of the deceased al