LAMBODAR DOWRAH Vs. PRIYANATH DOWRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners were convicted under Section 379, I.P.C., for reaping and taking away the paddy crop from land which was attached by an order of the Court under Section 145, Cr.P.C. They were sentenced each to undergo R.I. for 3 months in addition to a fine of Rs. 300/ -, (in default each was to suffer R.I. for 3 months more). On appeal, the convictions were maintained but the learned Sessions Judge, U.A.D., remitted the sentence of imprisonment in each case. The sentence of fine was allowed to stand.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that there was a dispute about the land between the complainant Priyanath Dowrah and the accused. The complainant in his petition under Section 145, Cr.P.C., alleged that the opposite party consisting of 6 persons including the three petitioners were trying to take away the paddy sown by him after dispossessing him from the said land. It was in this proceeding that by a preliminary order of the Court, the land was attached. The order for the attachment of the land was passed on the 24th November 1949. It was forwarded to the Officer -in -Charge of Amguri Police Station for service and also for attachment of the land in dispute on the 5th December 1949. The preliminary order shows that the disputed land which was to be attached measured 22 B. 3 K. 17 Ls. and that it was covered by two pattas Nos. 186 and 179. In his complaint under Section 379, I.P.C., from which this revision petition arises, the complainant alleged that the land was duly attached; that three days after the attachment, the accused came in a body and after reaping the harvest removed the paddy from 5 bighas of land which had been attached. It was further stated in the complaint that the paddy was still being reaped. The price of the paddy already taken away was estimated at Rs. 350/ -. The complaint was against 8 persons including the 3 petitioners.

(3.) I do not think this contention should prevail. The are of the land to be attached was stated. The patta numbers covering the land were also given. The Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police who executed the order deposed at the trial that in compliance with the order of the Court, he had attached it by putting pegs on the boundaries shown by both the parties. He stated that the attached land was scattered at three places. He did not specifically state the number of plots. But he obtained the signatures of two out of the petitioners and thumb impression of the third on his report. This shows that the petitioners were not only present but pointed out the land in dispute and were fully aware that the disputed land had been attached. There was due compliance with the order of the Court and attachment was effected. No other objection has been raised to the validity of the attachment.