NILA NAIK Vs. SHYAMSUNDAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were convicted under Section 379. 1. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. An appeal by them was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to give the facts in detail. Prosecution case is that the land was in possession of the complainant and that he grew paddy in 1963. On 1st december 1963 the petitioners forcibly entered into the land and cut and carried away the paddy. The defence is one of denial. Petitioners did not claim that they grew the paddy or were in possession of the land. They merely denied the reaping of the paddy by them and alleged that they were falsely implicated. The Courts below concurrently held that the complainant grew paddy and that on the date of occurrence the petitioner cut and carried away the paddy dishonestly.

(3.) IN view of the defence, the only question that arose for consideration was whether the petitioners cut and carried away the paddy. The finding in this regard of the Courts below is a pure finding of fact supported by evidence and cannot be interfered with in revision.