BHOLI MALIK Vs. KRUSHNA MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Each of the eight petitioners stands convicted under sections 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week in respect of each of the two offences by the learned appellate Judge who has maintained the orders of conviction, but has modified the sentences imposed on the petitioners by the trial court. The case of the complainant-opposite party was that on November 28, 1976, the petitioners cut away a portion of the fence to the east of his land and some branches of a mango tree standing on his land and removed the same. The petitioners plea was one of denial and false implication owing to previous grudge and ill will. The complainant-opposite party had examined himself as P.W. 1 and had examined three other witnesses. Two of them, namely, P.Ws. 2 and 3, had spoken about the occurrence and P.W. 4 had come to the scene after the occurrence was over. The petitioners had examined one witness in their defence.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the findings recorded by both the courts are unreasonable, unfounded and illegal calling for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. It has, on the other hand, been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that there is no justifiable reason to set at naught the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts.

(3.) It is well-settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not to act in its revisional jurisdiction as if it is hearing an appeal. But when the findings recorded by the trial and appellate courts are found to be unreasonable or unfounded, interference is called for. After all, concurrent findings do not become infallible merely because they are concurrent.