DEO NARAIN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 16/2002 whereby the order dated 10.08.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in Complaint Case No. 792 C/1996, Trial No. 396/2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 347, 348 and 379 of the I.P.C. directing the Petitioners to furnish bond of Rs. 3000/-with two sureties for a period of two years under the Probation of Offenders Act to maintain peace and public tranquility has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case No. 792 C/96 alleging therein that Jitni Devi, wife of Raghunath Chaudhary executed a sale-deed with respect to land measuring 2 Kathas, 12 Dhurs and 15 Dhurkis on 19.08.1996 in favour of his brother Dinesh Chaudhary. After the execution of the sale-deed, the vendee was given possession over the land alongwith the standing paddy crops. The paddy crops became ready for harvesting. On 27.11.1996 at about 9.00 A.M., the accused and Ors. armed with various weapons came to the aforesaid land and the accused Dev Narayan Chaudhary asked the co-accused to loot the crops. The accused and Ors. started harvesting the paddy crops, which was protested by the complainant. Thereafter, all the accused assaulted him and snatched wrist watch, wrapper and Rs. 400/-. Looting of the paddy crops caused a loss of Rs. 1500/-. After inquiry, cognizance was taken. Summons was issued against the accused. After the trial, all the accused were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 379 of the I.P.C. After hearing on the question of sentence, all the accused were released on furnishing surety of Rs. 3000/- with two sureties of the like amount for maintaining peace and public tranquility for two years. Thereafter, the accused Petitioners have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 16/2000, which was dismissed by the impugned order without interfering with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the Petitioners had also purchased the some land from the members of the same family and as such, both the complainant and accused persons have claimed right, title and interest over the same, as a result, standing paddy crops was harvested and was taken by the Petitioners. The learned trial court has committed a serious error by holding that the complainant was having right, title and possession over the land in dispute on account of being first purchaser, whereas, the accused is the second purchaser. The accused persons have purchased the part of the land in dispute from the daughter of Jitnit Devi, which was proved in course of the trial. As such, there was a civil dispute and the criminal proceeding ought to have been dropped as the only competent civil court could have decided the dispute. He has further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the Petitioners have committed any overt act, after passing of the impugned order and the period of bond has also expired.