PUJAN GOALA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Miss B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in CA No. 12(3) of 2003. The learned Sessions Judge by the aforesaid judgment affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Silchar, on 30.8.2003 in CR Case No. 2773/2001, whereby, the accused petitioners were convicted and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, S.I. for 15 days for commission of offence u/s 447 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for 30 days for commission of offence u/s 379 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the complainant has failed to prove the identity of the land in question. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the paddy grown in the land was harvested by the accused petitioners as the land belonged to them. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further stated that Ext. A revealed that there was no Dag like 160(Old) and 160/237 (new) within the Schedule of the disputed land. Therefore the claim of the complainant being the owner of the land is wholly misconceived and therefore the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt.