A. Pasayat, J. - (1.) DURING pendency of this revision application filed by petitioners, eleven in number, an application under Section, 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') was filed for acceptance of additional evidence. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party to the application.
(2.) BACKGROUND facts in which the revision came to be filed before this Court are to the following effect. The opposite party herein filed a complaint inter alia on the ground that his deceased father had purchased 62 decimals of land in plot No. 1403 of khata No. 204 in the year 1964 from one Rama Chandra Naik, his father and after him, he was in peaceful possession of the same. In the year 1984 he had raised various varieties of paddy on the disputed land. On 21 -11 -1984 the accused persons cut and removed the unripe crop notwithstanding protest by the opposite party complainant. The accused persons took the plea that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of petitioners 1 and 3, who had raised crop in the year 1984. It was their case that since they had raised the crop they had cut and removed the same. The learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Banki (in short 'the SDJM') found that there was no material to sustain the plea that the removal of paddy was in furtherance of a bona fide claim of right to property. Therefore, he found the petitioners guilty under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') but acquitted them of the charges under Sections 323/504,IPC. The alternative defence plea for release under the provisions of Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958 did not find acceptance by the learned SDJM. Petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Rest of the petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was stipulated that on realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 1500/ - shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack affirmed the conviction and sentence. The primary ground on 'which the application for acceptance of additional evidence has been moved is that previously also false implications were made, and in three different occasions the appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence originally awarded by the learned SDJM, Banki. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the allegations were self -same and the conclusions were in favour of the petitioners in the appellate Court.
(3.) THE learned counsel for opposite party, however, submits that these judgments have no relevance so far as the present case is concerned and they do not in any way further the case of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, according to him, the plea of bona fide claim of right was turned down by the appellate Court at least in two of the judgments, which are sought to be introduced as additional evidence.;