SUDAMA PANDEY @ PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal No. 38 of 1996, confirming the judgment of conviction dated 9th April, 1996 rendered by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in G.R. No. 895 of 1988, Tr. No. 263 of 1996. The trial Court had convicted the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year and two years respectively, directing the sentence to run concurrently. The appellate Court reduced the sentences passed by the trial Court to a period of three months and six months S.I. respectively.

(2.) It has been submitted that the accused revisionists were claiming the disputed land on the basis of an agreement for sale executed by Sharda Kuwar, vendor of the disputed land in favour of informant's father. There was also a title suit for specific performance of contract which was dismissed and against the decree of dismissal, there was an appeal pending before this High Court. So there was bona fide dispute and hence, the revisionists deserve acquittal.

(3.) However, I find that both the lower courts, on the basis of evidence, held that the informant was in possession of the disputed land and he also held that title deeds to be in his favour. So the accused-revisionists were convicted under Sections 147 and 379, IPC. The trial Court further stated in his judgment that since the revisionists had committed the aforesaid offences after prior deliberation, so they do not deserve benefit under Section 360 of the Probation of Offenders' Act and the appellate Court reduced the sentences passed by the trial Court. So far the claim of the revisionists for benefit of Section 360 of1 the Probation of Offenders' Act is concerned, I think the manner in which the occurrence was committed, was an act of high handedness which cannot be condoned in the circumstances of the case. If such offences are condoned, that will give rise to repetition of offences of the kind. Hence, I am of the opinion that the trial Court rightly rejected their claim under Section 360, Cr PC or under the Probation of Offenders' Act. The Appellate Court was rather lenient in reducing the sentences and converting the R.I. into one of simple imprisonment. The scope of revision is limited and findings of fact which are concurrent by the two courts below need not necessarily be interferred with in revision. In all circumstances, therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Appellate Court does not call for any interference by this Court.