YUMLEMBAM MOHAN SINGH Vs. THANGJAM GOLAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners by the First Class Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 170 of 1957 under Section 379 I.P.C. and against the dismissal of the appeal and the confirmation of the conviction and sentence by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1959. The petitioners 1 and 2 were each sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/ -and in default 3 months' R. I. while petitioners 3 and 4 were each sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/ -and in default to 2 months' R. I. each. In giving the higher punishment of fine of Rs. 100/ - to petitioners 1 and 2, the Magistrate has remarked that there was an aggravating circumstances against them, namely, that this was a repetition of their earlier offence, in 1956 in respect of the same land.

(2.) THE case against them was that on 9 -11 -1957, the petitioners with the help of other harvested paddy worth Rs. 250/ - from the complainant's land during his absence and thereby committed an offence under Section 379 I.P.C. It was strenuously argued for the petitioners that the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution did not prove the offence against them and that the Courts below did not give the necessary weight to the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence, in coming to the conclusion that the case has been proved against them. It is not possible for me in revision to interfere with the appreciation of oral evidence, when two Courts below have come to concurrent findings of fact, unless it is shown that their findings are totally perverse. I do not therefore propose to deal with the oral evidence. In fact, I admitted this revision only on one ground, namely the heavier sentence passed against petitioners 1 and 2 by the Magistrate as the charge against all of them was the same. So, I propose to deal mainly with that aspect of the matter.

(3.) THE question is whether the dishonest intention of the petitioners in harvesting and removing the paddy was proved in the Magistrate's Court In order to prove the dishonest intention, the respondent had produced before the Magistrate the judgment of the First Glass Magistrate. Manipur, K. L. Singh, dated 21 -1 -58 in Criminal Case No. 102 of 1956, which was a case against the petitioners 1 and 2 herein under Section 379 I.P.C. accusing them of harvesting and removing paddy from this very land on 26 -9 -56 in the absence of the complainant.