Lakshmi Narain, Addl. J.C.
1. This revision petition has arisen from the rejection of the accused's (Banka Chandra Laskar) appeal filed against his conviction and sentence for offences committed under Sections 325/447, Penal Code, by the Sadar Magistrate on 29.12.58 T.E. The High Court of Tripura was then the Court of first Appeal only; second Appeal or Revision used to lie to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which stands abolished and the Judicial Commissioner's Court is now vested with such powers.
2. This petition was filed on 5.8.50. The appellate Court's Judgment rejecting the appeal was announced on 11.3.59 T.E. The delay is explained in para 5 of the petition as due to the delayed decision of the application for permission to file a second Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which was required to be obtained according to Rule 19(c)(d) of the Rules relating to Tripura Rajya Raj Sabha Bichar Committee (Judicial Committee of the Privy Council). It appears that the above application was filed on 18.3.59 T.E. in the appellate Court soon after the rejection of the appeal on 11.3.59 T.E. that is, within a week's time. In the meantime constitutional changes happened and the State was merged with the centre, resulting in the abolition on the Privy Council and the establishment of the Judicial Commissioner's Court. That application was rejected on 20.7.50 with the following remark:
(Under the provisions of the Tripura (Courts) Order, 1950, the appellate Judgment of the old High Court is now to be treated as a Judgment of the Sessions Judge's Court. The only remedy that the petitioner can ask for is probably by way of a revision, in the light of the altered circumstances).
3. The above order was communicated to the Advocate of the petitioner on 25.7.50. The present petition for revision was filed on 5.8.50. Thus there is no unreasonable delay in filing the petition. The time spent in the disposal of the application for permission to file a second Appeal as required by the Rules then prevailing is not due to the petitioner's fault. He was proceeding into the matter diligently and with care. This petition is therefore filed within reasonable time and without undue delay. It is held accordingly.
4. It is complained that on or about the 11th of Falgoon of 1357 T.E. Shri Shyama Charan Chowdhury, the complainant, was given beating by the accused and his companions after trespassing into his field where the complainant was pouching, with an intention to drive him out from there. According to the prosecution Banka Chandra Laskar the present petitioner gave a stick blow on the head of the complainant resulting in its fracture. The above blow was given to the complainant after she had fallen down on receiving a stick blow from Suraj Mea co-accused. The injury on the head is proved to be a grievous hurt.
5. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel of the petitioner has admitted that his client has given the blow as alleged, but has contended that it was done in the exercise of his right of private defence inasmuch as the complainant had trespassed into his land and would not leave, his land. The matter is thus simplified to a great extent. The only point to be seen is whether the complainant was in his own land or on the land of the accused when the alleged beating was given to Mm. Both the trial as well as the appellate Courts have found out that the place of occurrence was the land in possession of the complainant. There is nothing palpably wrong in this finding. I am unable to hold that it is erroneous. On the revision side there is little to interfere with the concurrent conclusion arrived at by both the trial and the appellate Courts on finding of fact. In the face of the above, the question of the exercise of right of private defence does not arise at all.
6. No prejudice is shown to have resulted to the accused. It is not pointed out to the satisfaction of this Court that any material error in proceeding or error in decision of fact or law was committed which has ended in failure of justice.
7. In the result this petition for revision is rejected. The petitioner shall surrender to his bail.