(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. The applicants were convicted by Mr. Bangale, Magistrate, First Class, Chhindwara, of an offence Under Section 147, I.P.C., and sentenced as follows:
(2.) LAXMANRAO to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 600 and the remaining six, who were the servants of Laxmanrao, to rigorous imprisonment for six months' each. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the convictions reduced the sentences of the applicants other than Laxmanrao to three months' rigorous imprisonment each and in the case of Laxmanrao his sentence of imprisonment was remitted but the fine was maintained. All these persons have come up to this Court in revision and this order will dispose of all the applications for revision (this and Criminal Revisions Nos. 351 to 359 of 1933). The facts which are admitted may first be briefly stated. One Baliram, against whom Mt. Bhagirathibai, on 28th November 1930, obtained a money decree in Civil Suit No. 331 of 1930, was the absolute occupancy tenant of two fields called "Hinganwala" and "Khari" in Mouza Ghoti. Under a document dated 31st August 1930, Ex. D-5 Baliram had agreed to lease out these two fields to the applicant, Laxmanrao, and accordingly on 2nd January 1931 he executed a registered deed of lease in favour of Laxmanrao for seven years for a consideration of Rs. 1,538-10-0. By a prohibitory order dated 28th November 1930 the judgment-debtor, Baliram, was restrained from alienating his property On 31st January 1931 Baliram's fields were attached by Bhagirathibai in execution of her aforesaid decree. They were subsequently auctioned on 10th May 1932 and the decree-holder purchased them for Rs. 200 only. In pursuance of the seven years lease Baliram had transferred possession to Laxmanrao who had sown the crops which were standing in the fields of 5th August 1932.
(3.) IN my opinion the contention of the learned advocate for the applicants is correct. It is admitted by Marotirao, the agent of the decree-holder, P.W. 4, that before he took possession of the fields in execution of the warrant he was aware of the seven years lease in favour of Laxmanrao. Bhagirathibai is herself a cosharer of 8 annas in Mauza Ghoti and Marotirao could hot have been unaware of this lease when he got the fields attached and put up for auction-sale. At any rate since the deed of lease was registered on 27th April 1931 it is clear that its existence was known to the agent of Bhagirathibai on 12th May 1932 when the fields were purchased on her behalf for the paltry sum of Rs. 200. But the fact of this lease seems to have been suppressed and not brought to the notice of the Court both at the time when the property was sold and when the warrant for delivery of possession was issued. Only two witnesses, Dhondba, P.W. 7 and Sheikh Munir, P.W. 9, were examined for the prosecution on the point of delivery of possession. Marotirao, P.W. 4, stated that he was not present in the fields on 5th August 1932, but that another agent of Bhagirathibai; by name Vithoba took possession of the fields. Vithoba has not been examined. According to these witnesses Baliram and Laxmanrao were not called, and possession of the fields was said to have been delivered to Vithoba behind their back.