LAWS(ORI)-1987-1-33

SUKADEVA PRADHAN AND ANR. Vs. CHAKRADHAR SAMANTARAY

Decided On January 15, 1987
Sukadeva Pradhan Appellant
V/S
Chakradhar Samantaray Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two Petitioners have been convicted under Section 379 Indian Penal Code, and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banpur. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed their conviction, but altered the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Out of the fine amount the learned Sessions Judge has directed that a sum of Rs. 500/ - be paid to the complainant (P.W. 1) as compensation.

(2.) THE opposite party had given the F.I.R. that from the land possessed by him which he had purchased from one Gadei Pradhan, father of Petitioner No. 1, six teak trees were Cut and removed by both the Petitioners on 20th and 31st of January, 1980. The value of the said trees would be about Rs. 40,000/ -. Not with standing the lodging of information with the police the opposite party filed a complaint on 30 -1 -1980 since he apprehended that charge -sheet may not be filed in the case. The learned Magistrate therefore, directed for an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the said enquiry, the complainant examined his witnesses where upon the learned Magistrate took cognisance and ultimately in the trial the two Petitioners were convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE complainant examined as many as five witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. On behalf of the defence seven witnesses were examined and also some documents were proved. On the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 who are neighbouring land -owners, the evidence of the complainant (P.W. 1) and the evidence of P.W. 4 who is the scribe of the sale deed (Ext. 1) executed by Gadei in favour of the complainant in the year 1963, the two courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the land in question had been sold to the complainant who was in possession of the same from the date of the sale i.e., 23 -7 -1963. It may be noted that Ext. 1 is a registered sale deed. This finding arrived at by the two courts below cannot be disturbed in this revision.