DHANI ROUT AND ORS. Vs. ARJUN BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners, eight in number, stand convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code for forcibly cutting and removing the paddy crops grown by the complainant in his land and in his possession. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 18th July, 1966 in Criminal Appeal No. 313 C of 1965 has maintained the conviction of the Petitioners under the aforesaid section and also the sentence of fine of Rs. 60/ - passed against the Petitioner No. 1, but has reduced the sentence of fine with respect to the other seven Petitioners from Rs. 60/ - to Rs. 25/ - each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks, each.

(2.) WHILE admitting the revision, it has been specifically ordered that this application will be heard on the question of sentence only and not on merit.

(3.) THE decision of the Allahabad High Court quoted above is to the effect that the Judge hearing the revision is not bound by the previous order admitting the revision only on the ground of sentence, and has unrestricted right to hear the same on merits. This decision also does not go so far as to support the contention of Mr. Dhal as stated above. In para 29 of the said decision, it is also observed as follows: