But apart from the question of such prejudice which may have to be carefully considered, there is no legal bar preventing the court of facts from holding that though the charge specified only five or more persons, the unlawful assembly in fact consisted of other persons who were not named and identified. Learned senior counsel further contended that the view taken by the High Court qualifying the respondent for the benefit under Section 158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is also arbitrary and wholly erroneous for the reason that under Section 158(2) of the Code, only the Ruler holding land by virtue of the Covenant or agreement entered by him before the commencement of the Constitution shall be a bhumiswami.

Therefore, in order to bring home a charge under S. It is true that in the last category of cases, the court will have to be very careful in reaching the said conclusion. Even in such cases, it is possible that though the charge names five or more persons is composing an unlawful assembly, evidence may nevertheless show that the unlawful assembly consisted of some other persons as well who were not identified and so not named.

149 if the prosecution case is that the persons before the Court and others numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and so not named. Similarly, less than five persons may be charged under s. However, in the present case, there is no such legislation. I come now to the most important circumstance on which the Courts below have strongly rested their conclusion. That appears to be the true legal position in respect of the several categories of cases which may fall to be tried when a charge under section 149 is framed.

Moreover, two birs namely bijasan and berchha are part of Reserve Forest Area and on them no rights would accrue to the respondent. It is the specific finding of the Trial Court that the transfer of Suit schedule lands to the Household Department in the year 1951 is without any authority and therefore bad; the Ruler paid the Tauzi from 1951, but there is no evidence to show that Tauzi was paid for the period prior to 1951; the correspondence entered into by the plaintiff and her father with the Government showed that the Suit scheduled properties were not included in Item No.

In such cases the acquittal of one or more persons named in the charge does not affect the validity of the charge under section 149 because-on the evidence the court of facts is able to reach the conclusion that the persons composing the unlawful assembly nevertheless were five or more than five. Cases may also arise where in the charge, the prosecution names five or more persons and alleges that they constituted an unlawful assembly.

149 cannot be invoked. The failure to refer in the charge to other members of the unlawful assembly un-named and unidentified may conceivably raise the point as to whether prejudice would be caused to the persons before the Court by reason of the fact that the charge did not indicate that un-named persons also were members of the unlawful assembly. In such cases, if both the charge and the evidence are confined to the persons named in the charge and out of the persons so named two or more are acquitted leaving, before the court less than five persons to be tried, then s.

and unidentified persons are not traced and charged. 149 it is not necessary that five or more persons must necessarily be brought before the Supreme Court Law firms and convicted. It is said that the endorsement made on the hospital case paper reading " Asked for postmortem " under the direction of Dr. There can be no doubt that within the constitutional scheme guaranteeing freedom of religion, the legislature has to exercise restraints in matters essentially religious but still it has ample powers to legislate for better management of any religious or charitable Institution of public nature.

If the plaintiff had paid any revenue for these birs that was done only in ignorance of the fact and no rights would flow on that basis as these lands have never been given on lease by any competent authority to the plaintiff. In such cases, either the trial court or even the High Court in appeal may be able to come to the conclusion that the acquittal of some of the persons named in the charge and tried will not necessarily displace the charge under section 149 because along with the two or three persons convicted were others who composed the unlawful assembly but who have not been identified and so have not been named.

In such a case, if evidence shows that the persons before the Court along with unidentified and un- named assailants or members composed an unlawful assembly, those before the Court, can be convicted under section 149 though the unnamed. But there is no legal bar which prevents the court from reaching such a conclusion. We hasten to make it clear that the above inference is in view of peculiar features of the Act dealing mainly with acquisition of lands of certain types of Institutions.

The Trial Court after remand framed 24 issues, and after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Suit by judgement and decree dated 17-08-2001. In the present case where the applicability of rights through Covenant itself is in dispute, no bhumiswami rights could be granted by virtue of the Covenant. 78; the plaintiff was not in possession of the Suit schedule properties either in the form of ordinary tenant, Government lessee or land owner; that the Suit schedule lands were not allotted to the Forest Department by the State; and ultimately, the Trial Court held that in view of bar contained in Article 363 of the Constitution of India, the Suit is not maintainable.