M.P Saxena, J.:— Kanhaiya Lal complainant has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 16-1-75 passed by the IInd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deoria, discharging Babu Nandan, Suryadeo alias Chhote Lal, Ram Das, Prahlad Nath, Suraj Tewari, Ram Nath alias Ramakant, Vyas Nath, Ram Naresh, Jagdish, Dhanesar, Ram Nakshatra and Ram Jee under Section 227 Cr. P.C

2. Briefly stated the fact giving rise to this revision application are that a banjar plot No. 497 is situate in village Nadauli, P.S Lar, District Deoria. It vested in the Gaon Samaj after the abolition of Zamindari. By a resolution the Gaon Samaj earmarked this land for a Girls' School. For want of funds and other reasons the construction could not be started. Only boundary walls were erected and the land was lying vacant.

3. The Girls' School was being run in the house of a local Ex. M.L.C It is said that Kashi Nath Tewari is a notorious outlaw of the locality and he took into his head to take possession over the land and build his house thereon. On 21-12-72 he entered the land with members of his family and got the same dug and levelled by labourers. When the villagers objected, he threatened them with dire consequence and gave out that he would continue the work of construction at gun point.

4. The prosecution story goes on to say that on 24-12-72 at about 12.30 P.M Kashi Nath Tewari again came on the said land accompanied by 13 other persons. They included these 12 persons who have been discharged by the learned Sessions Judge. Kashi Nath Tewari and Prithvi Nath were possessed of guns. Suraj Tewari, Ram Nakshatra and Ram Jee Dubey were armed with spears and the rest carried lathis. They started setting up a thatched Tati with the khar and the bamboo chips, when Bashistha Tewari of village Nadauli who had snipped his relations with the latter happened to pass that way. He has going to the tubewell of Kedar Nath for taking water. He asked all these 14 persons who had formed an unlawful assembly and were present on the land as to what they were doing on the Gaon Samaj land. It provoked Kashi Nath Tewari who abused him and instigated to kill him. Prithvi Nath fired a gun shot, injuring Bashistha Tewari and the latter fell down. Just then Ram Bhagat, another victim of the offence, came there and expressed his indignation at the acts of 14 persons. Kashi Nath abused him also and exhorted to kill him. Prithvi Nath fired a shot at him and he also fell down on sustaining injuries. Just then Shyam Sunder, who was watching the incident, came forward, climbed a wall and with folded hands requested all the 14 persons to put an end to their activities. Kashi Nath fired a shot at him and caused grievous injuries. When the villagers resorted to counter firing these 14 persons ran away. Bashistha Tiwari, Ram Bhagat and Shyam Sunder were immediately rushed to the hospital where their injuries were examined. Their dying declarations were also taken down at 4 P.M 4.15 P.M and 4.30 P.M respectively. The first information report of this occurrence was lodged almost within an hour of the occurrence. All the 14 persons were sent up for trial under various counts. Upon a consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this respect the learned Addl. Sessions Judge considered that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against 12 persons who are opposite parties in this court. He, therefore, discharged them after giving detailed reasons for doing so. Hence the complainant has filed this revision application praying that the order of discharge is wrong and the opposite parties should also be put on trial.

5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision application by the complainant is legally not maintainable. According to him it should have been filed by the State. There is force in this contention. In the case of Thakur Ram v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 Supreme Court page 911, it has been held that in a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has no locus standi. The terms of Section 435 (Old code) are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu but the criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. This principle applies to the facts of the present case. The State has not come forward in revision against the order of discharge. Therefore, the revisionists who is a private party has no locus standi to do so.

6. Even on merit the revision application carries no force. The learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently contended that on the facts, stated above, it is evident that the opposite parties along with Kashi Nath and Prithvi Nath had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of taking or obtaining possession of the banjar plot by means of criminal force and in prosecution of that common object committed rioting, murder, attempt to commit murder and grievous hurt in respect of three persons. It is also argued that although Kashi Nath and Prithvi Nath alone were directly responsible for the injuries caused to three persons, the other accused had full knowledge that in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly such injuries were likely to be caused to any one who came forward to resists or obstruct the accused in fulfilment of their common object. Therefore, all the accused would be constructively liable by virtue of Section 149 I.P.C

7. The said contention is repelled by the opposite parties on the ground that there was no unlawful assembly at all and that in any case there is no sufficient ground to proceed against 12 accused persons, because the prosecution no where gave out that the deceased and the other two injured had caused any resistence or obstruction to what the accused were allegedly doing on the land. According to them the injuries to three persons were the individual acts of Kashi Nath and Prithvi Nath and it was not in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly. The first question for consideration obviously would be whether the opposite parties were at all present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. They were no doubt named in the first information report as well as in the statements of the witnesses taken down under Section 161 Cr. P.C but much value cannot be attached to them when none of the three injured in the dying declarations named these 12 persons. According to their dying declarations only Kashi Nath and Prithvi Nath were present and had inflicted the injuries. It was in the second dying declaration of Bashistha Tiwari recorded on the following day that he introduced the names of three other persons. Even in that statement he nowhere gave out that these persons had formed an unlawful assembly or had done anything to justify an inference that they were members of an unlawful assembly or Kashi Nath and Prithivi Nath acted in prosecution of their common object. In these circumstances the very presence of these 12 persons is rendered highly doubtful and they cannot be said to have formed any unlawful assembly.

8. Even if these 12 persons are held to be present they cannot be said to have formed any unlawful assembly because Section 141 of the Penal Code lays down that an assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is one of those enumerated thereunder. In the instant case clause four has been invoked from the side of the complainant. It reads:—

“By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any righ or supposed right.”

9. In the instant case the prosecution case was that Kashi Nath had taken possession over the land on 21-12-72. The incident had taken place on 24-12-72 when Kashi Nath had gone to start construction. Therefore, when the act of dispossession was already complete the aforesaid clause four was not applicable because on 24-12-72 Kashi Nath or for the matter of that other persons had not gone to obtain possession over the property by force. In this view of the matter also Kashi Nath and the opposite parties cannot be said to have constituted any unlawful assembly.

10. It is further important to state that according to the prosecution itself the opposite parties had neither said nor done anything. No overt act is assigned to them. There is no allegation that they had done any thing or exhorted any one to do anything. In these circumstances even if they were present on the land armed with lathis it cannot be said that they were members of unlawful assembly. They could be present only to start constructions over the land only when the possession was already taken. Their intention could not be to cause injuries to the three victims of the offence. The three injured had put no resistence or obstruction to what Kashi Nath had proposed to do. One of them had simply inquired as to what they were doing over the land of the Gaon Samaj. The other one had said that they were doing grave injustice and the third victim of the offence had simply entreated not to cause hurt to any one. If in these circumstances Kashi Nath and Prithvi Nath fired shots and caused injuries it was an individual act of those two persons and the opposite parties, even if they were present, could not be held responsible for it. There was no material against the opposite parties to establish even prima facie case against them and the Additional Sessions Judge was not wrong in discharging them. In this connection reference may be made to the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : AIR 1977 SC 1489 in which it was held that Section 227 empowers the Sessions Judge to discharge an accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question-whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonable to be possible. Where there is no material on the record on the basis of which any tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution, the court would be justified that the proceedings against the rest of the accused should be quashed. In the instant case also there is, in fact, no evidence against the opposite parties to hold them guilty of any charge. It would, therefore, be a futile attempt to try them and would mean unnecessary harassment to them. I, therefore, find no force in the revision application. It is accordingly rejected.

K.J.C

11. Revision rejected.