BHARAT SWAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 379, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated in brief. Petitioner is admittedly the bhag tenant in respect of the disputed land there was dispute between the landlords and the petitioner regarding yield of the land. An application was filed on 4 -12 -63 by landlord Kunjabehari Barik before the O. T. R. Collector (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) for appraisement of the crop under Section 79 of the Orissa Tenancy Act (herein after referred to as the Act). On 5 -11.63 the Collector passed an order of attachment of the standing crop. The Revenue Inspector, in pursuance of the order, attached the standing crop on 10.11.63 and kept the property in the sima (custody) of Bhramar Dehuri (P. W. 1). On 18 -11 -63 the petitioner forcibly cut and removed the paddy despite protest from P. W. 1. The petitioner, in his defence, admitted the cutting and removal of the paddy. He contended that there was a compromise between him and the landlords and he, without any dishonest intention, removed the paddy and paid landlords' share thereafter. The Courts below concurrently found that there was an attachment of the standing crop and that the forcible removal of the crop by the petitioner brought him within the mischief of Section 379, I. p. c. They held that the compromise was subsequent to the act of removal.

(3.) IN revision Mr. Patnaik does not assail the finding of fact. The sole contention is that the Collector had so power to attach the standing crop and that there was no prohibitory order under Section 79 of the Act on the petitioner for removal of the crop, and as such the acts of cutting and removal by the petitioner do pot constitute theft. The contention requires careful examination.