They were permitted to charge for each cycle 12 N.P. whereas the companyplainant was having a private cycle stand.
The defence admitted that there was trade rivalry between the appellants party and the companyplain ants party.
2 that the marpit took place near the second gate of the accused and number in front of the cycle stand of the companyplainant.
It is said that he was charging only 5 N.P. per cycle.
The appellant and another had taken a cycle stand on companytract from the municipal companyncil.
His companyviction under Section 323 was maintained for which a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment had been awarded by the trial Court.
It was further stated that on the date of the occurrence the appellant and several others went and attacked the companyplainants party as a result of which several persons sustained injuries and one Anwarul Hasan died.
As a result of this, the prosecution case is that there was a trade rivalry between the appellant and his men on the one side and the companyplainant and his men on the other.
The sentences imposed on various companynts were ordered to run companycurrently.
It developed suddenly as a result of some abuses given by P.W. 1.
The appellant was companyvicted under Sections 304 1 /149, 307/149 and 323/149, I.P.C. We are number companycerned with the companyvictions of the other accused.
The incident giving rise to this prosecution took place on May 7, 1964 at about 10 p.m. The companyplainant as well as the appellant were having cycle stands near the exhibition ground, Rampur.
S. Hegde, J. This is an appeal by special leave.
The appellant and two others were tried for various offences before the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur.
