HARI PANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 34 petitioners were tried by a. Second Class Magistrate of Chatrapur for offences under Sections 143 and 379, I. P. C. on the allegation that on 28-11-1952, they formed themselves Into an unlawful assembly at village Aladigam, P. S. Chatrapur with the common object of committing theft of paddy crops from survey Nos. 864, 900 and 1134 in the possession of the complainant Mangalu Panda and that in furtherance of the said common object, they also committed theft of the said paddy crops. They were convicted and sentenced to various amounts of fine. Their appeal to the appellate Deputy Magistrate, Chatrapur was dismissed.

(2.) THE disputed lands are 2. 51 acres in extents and it is admitted that they originally belonged to one Shrimati Pandiani who was the adoptive mother of petitioner Hari Panda. In execution of a decree against Srimati Pandiani in E. P. No. 757 of 1940, one Haribondhu Palo purchased the property through the Civil Court and the sale certificate (Ext. 2) in his favour is dated 24-10-41. The delivery of possession was given to him on 22-1-42 (Ext. 3/a) and it was confirmed in March 1942. The prosecution case is that since the date of the delivery of possession, the auction purchaser Haribondhu Palo remained in possession of the disputed property till he sold the same by Ext. 1 to the complainant Mangalu Panda (P. W. 1) on 8-12-44 Mangalu Panda stated that he remained in possession since then through some bhag tenants who used to given registered muchalikas. During the year of occurrence (1952) according to Mangalu Panda, his tenants Kondhai Sethi and Panda Sethi raised paddy crops on the disputed land.

(3.) PETITIONER Hari Panda had filed a claim case when the property was under attachment in the aforesaid execution proceeding. His claim was rejected sometime in March 1939 (Ext. 14), but he did not care to file a civil suit to establish his claim. He is the main accused in the case find his defence is that notwithstanding the Civil Court sale and delivery of possession, the property remained all along in his possession through his tenants and that they cut away the crops peacefully on 26-11-52 that is, two days before the alleged date of occurrence.