RAJANI KANTA MAITY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner and four others were convicted by a Magistrate, second class, Contain, on a charge under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month. On appeal the order of conviction of the Petitioner was maintained and the order of conviction of the others was set aside. The Petitioner has now moved against his order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) The complainant's case is that the Petitioner had dishonestly kept the paddy concealed in the moral and as such he had committed an offence under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the" Petitioner is that the complainant had himself thrashed the paddy and removed it in collusion with the other Bhag Chasis. The learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below maintained the conviction of the Petitioner on the ground mainly that he had inter alia pleaded alibi as his defence but by putting Ext. D to show that he had duly informed the Bhagchas Officer by this petition that during his absence the complainant Panchanan along with other Bhag Chasis had forcibly thrashed out and taken away the paddy in question from Rajani Maiti in spite of the protests of the members of his family. This suggestion that he was absent at the time of the occurrence, according to the court of appeal below showed mala fides on the part of the Petitioner and as such the finding against him was that he had dishonestly and fraudulently removed the paddy.

(3.) In support of the Rule Mr. Das has relied upon Section 16 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and has argued that all questions relating to the share of the produce of the Bhag Chasis were to be decided by a Bhag Chasis Court alone. He has also argued that whatever may be the defence of the Petitioner a criminal court was not justified in convicting the Petitioner on the facts alleged which even if believed did not amount to dishonest or fraudulent concealing or removal of any property. The complainant's case as found by the learned Judge of the court of appeal below was that there was a dispute between the complainant and the Petitioners and the other accused persons over the share of the Paddy and when the complainant refused to take 50 per cent, of the paddy as his share, all the accused persons removed the thrashed paddy from the morai of the Petitioner. The learned Judge of the court of appeal below found that this removal of the paddy from the Khamar of the Petitioner Rajani to his morai by the accused persons was neither dishonest nor fraudulent and the accused persons did not have the intention to practice fraud or deception on the complainant. The learned Judge, however, made a distinction in the case of the Petitioner on account of his having filed Ext. D to set up the plea of alibi. In acquitting the co-accused the learned Judge of the Court of appeal below held that they should not be made liable for the statement made by Rajani Maiti.