Chandra Deo Rai and Others vs State of Bihar

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment dated 3-7-2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Cr. Appeal No. 123/96/6/99, confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 13-9-1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in Complaint Case No. 216/86, trial No. 182/1996. Revisionists were convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 379, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo Rl for six months and one year respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Revisionists were prosecuted on the allegation that on 27-11-1986 at 9 a.m. accused-persons harvested the paddy crops of the complainant.

No body appeared when this revision was called out for hearing.

Memo of revision states that only interested witnesses have been examined and the land under dispute was subject of the title suit as also proceeding u/s 144 Cr. P.C. However, the trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced in its Court held that interestedness of the witnesses cannot be the sole ground for disbelieving the entire case. Revisionists were also convicted for the offence of harvested crops from the same field vide Complaint case No. 167/82. In such circumstance, the trial Court did not find in convenient to give benefit of Section 360, Cr. P.C. or Probation of Offenders Act to the revisionists. The appellate Court also confirmed the aforesaid Judgment of the trial Court.

5.1 find that the judgment of the two Courts below is not vitiated on account of misapplication of procedural law or mis-application of any other legal principle and hence because simply civil litigation was pending between the parties, that shall not indicate that the accused-revisionists were in possession of the aforesaid land. So, I am of the opinion that the orders of conviction recorded by the two Courts below would not warrant any interference by this Court.

In the result, this revision is dismissed.