Amitav K.Gupta,J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated14.02.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No.19 of 2000 affirming the order of conviction of the petitioners passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in G.R Case No.394 of 1997 (T.R. No.160 of 2000) for the offence under Sections144, 379 of the Indian Penal Code sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by each of the accused/ petitioners under Section 144 I.P.C and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- by each of the accused/ petitioners under Section 379 I.P.C and in failure to pay the fine to undergo S.I for six months and it was ordered that the fine so realised shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
(2.) Mr. Uday Kant Thakur, learned counsel, for the petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial court and the appellate court has failed to appreciate that the lands in question was not in possession of the complainant; that as per Exbt. - A the Assistant Settlement Officer, has held that Sita Muni Soren was not married in Gharjamai form and she is not entitled to share in the property. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the occurrence had been taken place on 22.11.1996 whereas the complaint was filed on 03.03.1997 and there is no plausible explanation for the delay of three and half months. It is argued that bonafide land dispute is a good defence against the prosecution in a case of theft as both the parties are claiming the land. It is also argued that the paddy was sown and grown by the petitioners who were in possession of the land. On the above grounds, it has been urged that the impugned order and judgment is not sustainable in law or on facts and is fit to be set aside.
(3.) Mr. J. P. Jha, learned senior counsel, while countering the arguments has submitted that there is concurrent findings by the trial court and appellant court that the paddy was sown and grown by the complainant and the land was in possession of the complainant. That in view of the concurrent findings there is no question of law involved neither there is any error apparent regarding the facts on record. It has been argued that the petitioners have not produced any chit or paper to prove that they were in possession of the lands of Plot Nos.990, 995, 1012 and 3163 in Jamabandi No.19 of village Dhenukata, P.S. Poraiyahat. Thus the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference.;