HRUSIKESH DAS Vs. DHANU GHADEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application, assail (sic ?) is to the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Subdivisional Judge Magistrate, Jajpur, confirmed in appeal by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack.

(2.) Allegations were levelled against the present petitioners and seventeen others they dishonestly removed paddy crops from the land belonging to the complainant-opposite party. The present petitioners laid a claim. that they had purchased the disputed land on 2-6-1984, had grown paddy crops and therefore, there was nothing illicit in their removing the paddy crops. Though the date of occurrence is 8-9-1984 the complaint was filed on 19-9-1984 which is the starting point of the litigation so far as the present case is concerned.

(3.) Witnesses were examined by both the parties in support of their respective stands and on evaluation of the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, came to hold that the charge u/ S. 379 of the Penal Code (In short the 'IPC') was established beyond the shadow of doubt so far as the present petitioners are concerned; but gave benefit of doubt to the other accused persons and acquitted them. Rearing on the question of sentence and on the entitlement of the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, the learned trial Magistrate came to hold that the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was not to be extended to the petitioners, but taking a lenient view sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- each, in default to simple imprisonment for ten days each.