JAMUNA SINGH Vs. ZULMI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no substance in this application at all. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 379, I.P.C., in (respect of a gram crop worth about Rs. 250. The petitioner Jamuna Singh has been sentenced to a fine of Ra. 200 with six months rigorous imprisonment in default and the other two petitioners have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 each with three months rigorous imprisonment in default. The whole fine, if realized, is to go to the complainant as compensation under Section 545, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The prosecution story was that a holding of 17 bighaa which, long ago, belonged to one Chandrawati Kuer had passed through rent executions to the landlord Awadhesh Babu who, in 1934, sold his interest to Ramautar Singh. This Ramautar Singh last year set. tied the holding in batai with one Zulum Singh (P.W. 1), who grew gram on the holding; and when the crop was ready, the petitioners with others went upon the land and cut and took the crop away. The defence was that the holding was in the possession not of the landlord or his purchaser Ramautar but of the petitioner Jamuna Singh, whose father, Baldeo, had purchased the holding in a rent execution. There was however no dispute that after that auction-purchase the landlord had obtained a rent decree against Chandra, wati Kuer and Baldeo, and in execution of this decree had purchased the holding him-self about a year after Baldeo's purchase. Stress was laid on the fact that the dakhaldehani in connexion with this purchase of 1917 had not been proved, but prima facie, there was no reason why the landlord, having proceeded both against Chan, drawati and against Baldeo, should have left Baldeo in possession of the land.

(3.) It has been urged that proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P. C, in which orders were passed against Jamuna in the year 1932 have been wrongly assessed by the lower Courts. Orders in such proceedings cannot, of course, be taken as decisive of the rights of either of the parties, but the nature of the proceeding and its conclusion may be referred to when the history of the property is in question. It appears that on that occasion there was a dispute about the possession of the holding between Awadhesh and petitioner Jamuna, and that as a result of the proceeding the Magistrate by a summary order forbade Jamuna to go near the disputed land and the crops on it. I do not think that this has been taken by either of the Courts to indicate at all decisively as against Jamuna Singh that Awadhesh was in possession; but it does suggest that Awadhesh could not have been content with a mere certificate, as urged by the defence, though au this date the actual dakhaidehani is not forthcoming. Five witnesses appear to have been called to speak to the complainant's possession of the land in question. Their evidence was considered in detail by the Courts below, as also the evidence of the two witnesses for the defence, Kamo Singh and Medni Singh, whom the lower Courts concurrently disbelieved as liars.