- (1.) BY Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Notice was issued to the complainant, which was returned back with the service report that the complainant has died.
(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21.9.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Cr. Appeal No.58 of 1986, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 17.5.1986, passed by Sri A. P. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Deoghar, in P.C.R. Case No. 538 of 1981 / T.R. No.708 of 1986 finding the petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 379 of the IPC and convicting and sentencing them for the same, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below, with the modification in sentence directing the petitioners to enter into the probation bonds of Rs.2,000.00 each with two sureties of the like amount each for keeping peace and be a good behaviour for the period of one year. From perusal of the impugned Judgments, it appears that the case was instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the petitioners variously armed and forming unlawful assembly, forcibly harvested the crop, planted and grown by the complainant over the plots Nos.308 and 262. The complainant claimed the possession of the land in question being the heir of the recorded tenant. In course of trial, both oral and documentary evidences were adduced by the complainant in support of her claim and the witnesses including the complainant deposed the fact about the harvesting of the crop by the petitioners. However the fact remains, as it appears from the impugned Judgments, that the accused petitioners also claimed to be in possession of the land in question being the heirs of the recorded tenant. The fact that the petitioners are heirs of the recoded tenant stand admitted by the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant.
(3.) THE impugned order also shows that at the time of the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court below, no one was heard on behalf of the appellants, as no one was taking interest in the case and the Court below has disposed the appeal only upon going through the record and upon hearing the State counsel.;