Malay Kumar Basu, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against a judgment and order dated 17.12.98 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sixth Court, Midnapore in Criminal Revision No. 248 of 1996 affirming the judgment and order dated 2.9.95 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk in Claim Case No. 70 of 1994 under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) The relevant facts leading to the revision are as follows:- Panchanan, the present O. P. No. 2, filed a petition before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for an order giving the seized paddy and straw in question to their custody. He claimed that he was the owner in respect of 89 decimals of land in plot No. 1156 under Mouza Banakhana and was in possession of 48 decimals thereof by cultivating paddy in every year. In the year 1993 also he cultivated paddy in the said land with the help of his men. But, surprisingly, Narayan Bera and others (the present revision-petitioners) harvested that paddy and took the same to their house and then Panchanan Pal informed police and the seized paddy was kept in the Zimma of one Sudhamoy Mondal and Sita Bera who were the members of the local Gram Panchayat. Similarly, as regards the plot Nos. 1236 and 1237 of the said mouza which belonged to Panchanan's brother. Panchanan used to possess the same and cultivate the same every year, but in the year 1993 he having been sick and being in need of money, permitted Sankar Prosad Maity and others to cultivate that land on contract-basis. But the O. Ps. wrongfully harvested the paddy grown on these lands also and took away and misappropriated the same. Another police case was lodged over this incident and police seized the paddy and straw in dispute under a Seizure List and here also Panchanan made a prayer for return of the seized paddy to his custody. Thereafter, Panchanan filed the petition under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk for getting custody of the paddy in question.
(3.) Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, after perusing the documents filed by both the sides and hearing the learned Advocates of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the claim of Panchanan that he had cultivated, the lands in question with the help of his men or hired labourers and the O.Ps. (Narayan Bera and others) were not the Bargadars in respect of the same had been substantiated from the materials-on-record and the claim of the O. Ps. that they were Bargadars and they cultivated the disputed crops as share crops had not been established. Accordingly, learned Magistrate allowed the prayer of the petitioner, Panchanan and directed the Zimmadar to return the seized paddy and straw to him immediately.;