RAM BIRICH MAHTO Vs. BISHWANATH MISSER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 426 of the Penal Code, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the petitioner and others harvested green paddy crops grown by Badri Narain Jha P.W. 1 on the lands in question. The petitioner's case was that he was in possession of the lands as a bataidar, and that he, therefore, was entitled to harvest the crops as he did.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has next attempted to take me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the question of possession. I have looked into the evidence of some of those witnesses; but I do not see any good reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Courts below that Badri Narain Jha was in possession, and had grown the crops which were harvested and looted by the petitioner. He has also tried to show that the receipts filed by the petitioner could have been held to be genuine; but I do not see any good reason to differ from the conclusions of the Courts below even on this point.