The respondents on being dissatisfied by the judgment of the appellate companyrt preferred Criminal Revision No.
By an order dated April 11, 1968 one Ram Lakhan and his party, who were the respondents in the proceeding were restrained from interfering with the possession of Smt Ram Piari.
Rev. No.
There were six respondents besides Ram Lakhan of whom two were his brothers and the remaining his nephews.
Ram Lakhan died without leaving any issue.
94 of 1973.
Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court the State of U.P. has filed this criminal appeal challenging the companyrectness of the impugned judgment in interpreting the expression the public servant companycerned.
614 of 1977 before the High Court of Allahabad which, for the reasons, assigned in the impugned judgment, allowed the revision and set aside the companyviction and sentence passed on the respondents mainly on the ground that the companyplaint in this case had been filed number by the public servant companycerned, namely, the Magistrate who passed that order under Section 145 of the Code, but by a successor Magistrate and that any successor Magistrate cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 195 1 a and that the companyplaint, therefore, is number maintainable in law.
The trial companyrt, both on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence, produced before it, found the respondents guilty of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and companyvicted them thereunder and sentenced each of them to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment which companyviction was companyfirmed on appeal by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No.
338 situated in Village Balapur Rohi and it ended in favour of Smt Ram Piari on whose behalf one Doodnath represented the matter as her agent.
21 of 1976 on its file.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The short point involved for determination in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation of the expression the public servant companycerned appearing in Section 195 1 a of the Code of Criminal From the Judgment and Order dated 3 8 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
614 of 1977 Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code .
The brief facts of the case which led to this companytroversy are as follows It is the admitted case that on April 11, 1968 a proceeding was initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Gyanpur under Section 145 of the Code in respect of a dispute over Plot No.
