ANANDA BHOI Vs. JUHAN MUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons indicated below the impugned judgment dated 22.8.1994 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Revision No. 6/18 of 1993 is liable to be set aside.

(2.) THE first party in Criminal Misc. Case No. 248/98 of the Court of Sub -divisional Magistrate. Sambalpur (in short 'S.D.M.') is the petitioner No. 1 in this Criminal Revision and the contesting second party No. 1 the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 6/10 of 1993 (in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge) is the opposite party in this revision.

(3.) AT the stage of inquiry under Sub -Section (4) of Section 145, Cr.P.C the first party adduced oral evidence of himself and the ceiling surplus land -holder Rabindra Nath Pujhari relating to settlement, delivery of possession and thereafter possession of land by him (first party) and adduced oral evidence of collection Moharir who proved the rent receipt filed by the first party. First party also filed the patta granted in his favour and the rent receipt in addition to the aforesaid oral evidence in proof of the claim of actual possession. The second party/opposite party only examined himself as the solitary witness in support of his claim of long possession. He did not file any document and did not examine any independent witness in support of his claim for actual possession.