G.K. Sharma, J.
1. This is a revision petition filed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 6th June, 1978, upholding the judgment of Munsiff Magistrate. Ueeg, by which the petitioners have been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. For the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. each petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and for the offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, each petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 25/-.
2. A complaint was filed by Om Prakash, before the Munsiff Magistrate, Deeg, which was sent to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr. PC. On this complaint the S.O. Police Station Deeg, registered the case, investigated it and submitted the challan against the petitioner under Section 147/149 I.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Cattle Tresspass Act The learned Magistrate, after trial found the petitioners guilty under Section 147 I.P.C. and under Section 24 of Cattle Trespass Act, and sentenced as mentioned above. Appeal was preferred but was dismissed by. Additional Sessions, Judge, Bharatpur.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that the petitioners had formed unlawful assembly, their conviction under Section 147 I.P.C. is bad. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from the evidence on record it has been established that the petitioners had a common object to forcibly take the catties when they were being taken to cattie pond.
4. Unlawful Assembly is defined Section 141 IPC. An assembly of 5 or more persons will be declared as unlawful assembly if the object of that assembly is to overawe by criminal force any public servant i.e. the exercise of the lawful power of the public servant or to resist the execution of any law, or any legal process; to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or any other offences or by means of criminal force take possession of any property or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of the right of way or the use of water etc. or by means of criminal force to company person to do what he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. It was argued that none of the condition mentioned in this Section 141 I.P.C. has been established.
5. It is on the record that some quarrel took place on the fact that cattle of the petitioner damaged the crop of the complainant Ramswaroop. When the complainant was taking cattle to cattle pond the petitioners obstructed and forcibly released the cattles. In this quarrel the petitioners party got injuries and they filed a complaint against the complainant and others. To meet the complaint, the complainant has filed this complaint after three days. In the complaint itself it has been mentioned that compromise talks were going on between the parties but no compromise arrived at, so the complainant has filed the present complaint against the petitioner. From this fact the motive of the complainant becomes clear. As complaint was pending against them and the petitioner Keval, did riot agree for compromise the. complainant put pressure on the petitioners who filed this complaint after three days. So it shows that the case of forming an unlawful, assembly and noting was subsequently made out by the complainant and to put pressure on the petitioner Keval, who has filed a complaint against the complainant. The present complaint has been filed. This delay, they' tried id explain in the complaint. In the result the case of unlawful assembly has been falsely made out.
6. I have perused the statements of the witnesses also and from the evidence it is not proved or established that the petitioners have formed an unlawful assembly having one of the object mentioned in Section 141 IPC. If is not the allegation of the complainant that he or his party men were given any beating. No over act which shows the use of criminal force has been, proved. Thus the offence of rioting has not been established. The petitioners have formed an unlawful assembly has not been proved. The learned Magistrate, as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has erred in not appreciating the evidence in a right perspective manner. They foiled to come to correct conclusion that the petitioners have formed the unlawful assembly or not. Thus the finding that the accused are guilty under Section 147 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have not pressed regarding the conviction under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The offence has been established and the petitioners have been rightly held guilty for this offence.
8. As a result, the revision petition is partly accepted The conviction and the sentence of the petitioners under Section 147 I.P.C. is set-aside and they are acquitted from the charge of this offence. The fine if realised from them for this offence be refuraed. How ever, the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, is maintained.