ABDUL SATTAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/2/1983 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, Cachar, whereby the petitioners Appeal against their conviction under Section 1431379 I.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Karimganj by judgment and order dated 29/6/1981, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the petitioners had been prosecuted on complaint that on 29/11/1980 the petitioners had formed unlawful assembly and had forcibly cut and taken away paddy crop of the complainant in the land of which he had taken settlement from the owners of Ramani Krishna Tea Estate, had been in its possession and had grown the said paddy crop. The complainant had examined himself as P.W. 1 and deposed in support of the version in the complaint, P.W. 2 Sona Mia the chowkidar of the garden had supported the complainant in regard to the settlement of land to him, growing of paddy crop therein and cutting away of the paddy crop by the petitioners. P.W. 3 Abdul Sukhur had also supported the complainants version, P.W. 4 Nikhil Chida Bhattacharyya had also testified about the settlement of the land in favour of the complainant and P.W. 5; Atar Ali who was a neighbouring witness had also supported the complainant. The petitioners had not led any evidence and in their statements under Section 313 01 the Code of Criminal Procedure, they had simply denied the allegations. The learned Trial Court had held that the petitioners had formed unlawful assembly and cut and taken away the paddy crop and had accordingly convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 100/- on charge under Section 143 I.P.C. and three months R.I. under Section 379 I.P.C. The petitioners appeal was dismissed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) In revision, Sri S.K. Senapti, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners had been the tenants of the land and the paddy crop had been grown by them and accordingly the conviction of the petitioners was not sustainable.