Jamuna Singh and Others vs Zulmi Singh

Dhavle, J.—There is no substance in this application at all. The petitioners have ''been convicted u/s 379, I.P.C., in (respect of a gram crop worth about Rs. 250. The petitioner Jamuna Singh has been sentenced to a fine of Ra. 200 with six months'' rigorous imprisonment in default and the other two petitioners have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 each with three months'' rigorous imprisonment in default. The whole fine, if realized, is to go to the complainant as compensation u/s 545, Criminal P.C.

The prosecution story was that a holding of 17 bighaa which, long ago, belonged to one Chandrawati Kuer had passed through rent executions to the landlord Awadhesh Babu who, in 1934, sold his interest to Ramautar Singh. This Ramautar Singh last year set. tied the holding in batai with one Zulum Singh (P.W. 1), who grew gram on the holding; and when the crop was ready, the petitioners with others went upon the land and cut and took the crop away. The defence was that the holding was in the possession not of the landlord or his purchaser Ramautar but of the petitioner Jamuna Singh, whose father, Baldeo, had purchased the holding in a rent execution. There was however no dispute that after that auction-purchase the landlord had obtained a rent decree against Chandra, wati Kuer and Baldeo, and in execution of this decree had purchased the holding him-self about a year after Baldeo''s purchase. Stress was laid on the fact that the dakhaldehani in connexion with this purchase of 1917 had not been proved, but prima facie, there was no reason why the landlord, having proceeded both against Chan, drawati and against Baldeo, should have left Baldeo in possession of the land.

It has been urged that proceedings u/s 144, Criminal P. C, in which orders were passed against Jamuna in the year 1932 have been wrongly assessed by the lower Courts. Orders in such proceedings cannot, of course, be taken as decisive of the rights of either of the parties, but the nature of the proceeding and its conclusion may be referred to when the history of the property is in question. It appears that on that occasion there was a dispute about the possession of the holding between Awadhesh and petitioner Jamuna, and that as a result of the proceeding the Magistrate by a summary order forbade Jamuna to go near the disputed land and the crops on it. I do not think that this has been taken by either of the Courts to indicate at all decisively as against Jamuna Singh that Awadhesh was in possession; but it does suggest that Awadhesh could not have been content with a mere certificate, as urged by the defence, though au this date the actual dakhaidehani is not forthcoming. Five witnesses appear to have been called to speak to the complainant''s possession of the land in question. Their evidence was considered in detail by the Courts below, as also the evidence of the two witnesses for the defence, Kamo Singh and Medni Singh, whom the lower Courts concurrently disbelieved as liars.

The learned advocate for the petitioners has taken me in detail through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal. The comments he levelled at the judgment mostly consisted of mere repetition of the comments made before the Sessions Judge and met by him, as I think, unanswerably. There is, for instance, the saneha that was lodged on 7th March regarding the uprooting of the gram by the enemy on 5th March. As the present occurrence took place on 8th March the contention on behalf of the petitioners (who were appellants below) was that they must have been harvesting the land for three days before any action was taken by Zulum Singh and that this itself proves that possession was with Jamuna Singh.

The learned Sessions Judge has quite correctly pointed out that uprooting of the gram was a minor affair. Much stress was laid on failure of the complainant to insist on a first information being drawn up about 5th March. But it is not always that a first information is drawn up at once in such cases. When his land was again interfered with, the complainant went not to the police (who had only recorded a saneha previously) but to the Magistrate to lodge a complaint. Another argument which was repeated before me related to the possession of a plot of which the boundaries were put to Zulum Singh.

The learned Sessions Judge has correctly pointed out that no inference can be drawn from the answer, and that Zulum may well be in possession of the various plots without knowing the boundaries and without being able to identify them from the boundaries which were put to him in cross-examination. Then there was the contradiction between Zulum''s statement that the four plots were scattered and the statement of Sital Singh (P.W. 3), a cultivator, who according to the defence was actually a bataidar of the landlord, that the four plots were in one place. I do not think that discrepancies of this kind prove anything very much; and as the learned Sessions Judge points out there is other evidence on the record, of a not unsatisfactory character, regarding the possession of the complainant. The learned'' advocate argued that Bajrang Prasad Singh (D.W. 1), had proved the receipt of rent from Jamuna by the patwari of Awadhesh Babu, and pointed out that the receipt that had been spoken to by Bajrang Prasad Singh was not positively denied by the landlord.

The whole of this contention however turns out to be baseless because Bajrang; Prasad, so far as I have been able to discover, did not say anything about the payment of rent by Jamuna at all, but only, spoke to the handwriting of Ex. A, a receipt which purports to have been granted by the patwari of Awadhesh. Whether or not any rent was paid we do not know. Awadhesh is not dead nor the patwari, but the defence merely tried to prove the patwari''s handwriting.

I do not think that in these circumstances the purchaser from Awadhesh was required to meet any case based on payment of rent by Jamuna. Then there was the evidence of the postal peon (D.W. 4) who spoke of a money order for Rs. 83 odd on behalf of Jamuna being, tendered to Ramautar and being refused by him. This proves nothing it is merely consistent with Jamuna''s claim as a tenant and Ramautar''s denial. It is idle to say that if Jamuna had not been in possession, he would not have made the tender. It would have been much more to the point if in support of his alleged possession Jamuna had proved the receipts for the rents which he presumably had been paying ever since his purchase in 1916; but this does not seem to have been attempted.

In paras. 10 to 16 of the application for revision, a collection of discrepancies has been made, which it is, said will be found in the record. The learned advocate lias read this out to me, and it does not seem to me necessary to deal with it at all. Discrepancies of that kind are to be found in every record and the High Courts do not deal with them in revision. They were not specifically dealt with by the lower Courts because of their manifestly trivial character.

It is, in my opinion, unfortunate that in a certified copy of the complainant''s evidence given to the petitioners, the damage done to the crops was put at Rs. 50. I have referred to the original and found that the figure is Rs. 250. The revs ional application was admitted apparently because the fines seemed disproportionate to the damage done. This is not the first occasion in my experience when a copyist''s carelessness has led to unnecessary work. The application fails and must be dismissed.