Chet Ram Thakur, J.
1. This is a revision petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed against the judgment and order, dated 13.10.1970 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Mandi affirming on appeal the order of the Magistrate First Class, Mandi directing tile petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 30/- each to the 11 respondents under Section 250 Criminal P.C. or in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days each.
2. Tara Chand petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 447/427 I.P.C. against Goverdhan Singh and 11 others on the allegations that they had made a criminal trespass in Khasra No. 221 measuring 3.13.4 Bighas situate in village Parwara District Mandi on 20.8.1969. The land was in the lawful possession of the petitioner for over last 40 years.
3. This complaint was dismissed and the accused were discharged by the Magistrate First Class. According to the Magistrate, the complaint was false and frivolous and he therefore, issued notice, as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 250 Cr.P.C. calling upon the complainant to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. The complainant filed his reply to the show cause notice, but the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the same. Consequently, he passed the impugned order directing the complainant to pay a compensation of Rs. 30/- each to the accused.
4. In this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts below had erred in not correctly appreciating the evidence and had failed to draw the correct conclusions therefrom. At the outset, it may be stated that in a revision under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the High Court is not to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts, unless the findings are wholly foolish and perverse. In the instant case, both the Courts below have discussed the evidence threadbare and have come to a concurrent finding that the land was not in the possession of the complainant as alleged by him, rather the same was in the possession of the accused. Goverdhan Singh, one of the accused persons had purchased the 3/4th share in this land from Daya Ram, Maghu and Maya. The accused had been recorded in possession ever since the purchase of this land in 1964.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the learned Magistrate had failed to discuss the evidence of Amar Singh, one of the cosharers of this land and who had supported the version of the complainant to the effect that he was in possession of the land for the last several years. He was an owner of 1/4th in the land and his statement carried much weight and, therefore, on that account the order of the learned Magistrate holding that the complaint was false and frivolous was unsustainable. Further, he has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also made a passing reference to the statement of Amar Singh, and that he too has not held whether the deposition of Amar Singh was credible or it was unreliable, I have seen the statement of Amar Singh and the order of the learned Magistrate. It is true that Amar Singh, who is stated to be one of the cosharers has been examined as one of the P. Ws. and the learned Magistrate has not discussed his evidence, nor has made even the slightest reference to his deposition However. I, find from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he has referred to the same. From the statement of Amar Singh also, even if the same may be held not to have been taken into consideration by the lower courts, I find it does not in any way advance the case of the complainant. Amar Singh deposed in examination-in-chief that the complainant and his father had been in possession of the disputed land for the last 40 years, but he stood contradicted in cross-examination when he stated that the Patwari had been carrying out the crop inspection (Girdawari) by going on the spot. If that is correct it is not understood why the Patwri failed to incorporate the correct factual position in the revenue papers, about the possession of Tara Chand on the land. This will, however, go to show that the complainant was never in possession of the land, otherwise it could not escape the notice of the Patwari who, according to the statement of Amar Singh, had been going to the spot at the time of each harvest and had been making the entries in accordance with the actual possession found on the spot. Therefore, this contention of the complainant that Amar Singh supported his ease is also not correct.
6. The further contention is that this was a grass land and the Patwari could not find out the actual possession because there was no cultivation and so it was only the owner who was the best person to say as to who had been cutting the grass. I do not agree with this sub-mission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Patwari went at the spot for crop inspection of the fields, that is to find out as to who was in actual possession of the field at a particular time, so it was his duty also to find out as to who used to cut the grass. The accused had been shown in possession of the land and that is also on the basis of the actual possession as ascertained by the Patwari at the spot. Hence, the submission about the statement of Amar Singh not having been discussed or taken into consideration by the courts below is not of any avail to the petitioner.
7. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have also ignored a very material document, i.e. Ex. P-A from consideration and on that account the courts could not arrive at the correct decision and they came to the conclusion that the complainant was never in possession of the land and that it was a false and vexatious complaint simply to harass the respondents. In this behalf also, after having gone through the document, I am of the view that the sajne is not an order of the Assistant Collector Second Grade as was urged. By this order the Assistant Collector Second Grade directed the Field Kanugo to go at the spot and find out the factual position about the possession. This document, therefore, is also of no help.
8. Next is a document Ex. C.W. 1/A. which is also stated to be a report made by the Field Kanugo and the learned Counsel contends that this document was also very material but has not been taken into consideration. I have perused the document. It is also a report and it has got no bearing because it is based on what the Kanugo has found from his inquiry.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Court should deal out substantial justice, and if the courts below have given a wrong finding, it must rectify the wrong and he has referred me to Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal : 1959CriLJ256 . But the principle of this case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, because that was a case in which there was the question whether a revision made under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure finally abates on the death of the petitioner, in the High Court and if so to what extent. But here it is a different thing. The findings are concurrent and the complaint has been found to be false and frivolous.
10. The learned Counsel also cited Mt. Jaina v. Santukdas AIR 1920 Nag 78 (1) : (1920) 21 Cri LJ 41 to show as to what 'frivolous' means for purposes of Section 250 Cr.P.C. There is no doubt that the word 'frivolous' means 'trifling,' 'silly,' or 'without due foundation.' In the instant case, as the courts have come to concurrent findings that there was no foundation for making a complaint, therefore, the complaint was definitely a vexatious and a frivolous one. Re Dinshahji Hirjibhai AIR 1932 Bom 177 : (1932) 33 Cri LJ 392 also does not assist the petitioner. This case only lays down the principle that false complaint or false information on mere suspicion is false and vexatious within Section 250 Cr.P.C.
11. Since the findings are concurrent and both the courts have held that the testimony of the witnesses produced by the complainant are unreliable and that they are either the relations or persons interested in the complainant, therefore, it is not open for this Court to reappraise the evidence, and, in this view I am supported by Srimanta Manna v. The State : AIR1960Cal519 . It is in fact the satisfaction of the Magistrate with regard to the falsity or the frivolity of the complaint and he has been fully satisfied that the same is so and, therefore, I feel no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below.
12. One of the submissions made by the petitioner is that the compensation awarded is too excessive. Undoubtedly, the People belong to rural areas where the means are limited and I think the ends of justice would be met if the compensation is reduced from Rs. 30/-to Rs. 10/- each For the above. I therefore, dismiss this revision petition with this modification that the compensation is reduced from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 10/-payable to each.