ATTISGARLI ‘ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHH AT BILASPUR ) of CRIMINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 378 {4 PROCEDURE CODE I//i:/ \J \ " Cr.M.P. NO. %% ‘ ”D. ‘ [2010 APPLICANT] Comylamant ‘g Manher Singh S/ o. Lachhindar, aged about 65 years, Caste— Kalar, R/ 0. Talpara, Village rfpvvm \ B110r}, . . , RS. Frejarpur . Parpa, gaf€§g§ax§$ 'ép ”® V Tahs§1~ Jagdalpur (Bastar) @zw‘” Wyév‘ VERSUS Premasmgh S/o Pendi, aged NON-APPLICANTI : Caste Kalar, Accused about 38 years R/ o. Talpara, Vlllage B11011, RS. Frejarpur Parpa, Tahsil» Jagdalpur (Bastar) 'mm ~ €VM?N\’38°/7’am m 200 61mm (Wu) lication for condonation of delay in of commission of offence under evidence on record that the non-appiic i i a for the applicant argues that the appi mwm mm ’fsétm am‘f‘auaném B : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan S 29-09-2010 Shri Rahui Mishra, counsel for the a plicant. Heard on I‘A.No.1, which is an ming the instant petition. Taking into consideration the gro nds urged in the appiication, it is aiiowed and the deiay in filing the instant p tition is condoned.‘ Learned counsel for the applic argued that the Coutt below has acquitted the nan-applicant of the char Section 427 of the i.P‘C. inoring co ent material and unimpeachable reaped the crop stahding on the agriouttural iand owned and in possess of the édpiicant. Lea‘rned counsel t/comptainant and his witnesses have stated that the agriculturai iand situ ted near Goriya Bahar Nata, Viilage ‘ Bilori belonged to him, on which, he had sed crop. He also submits that the defence witnessee have also stated in th ir testimony that the non~appiicant- Prema Singh told them that the dispute h s taken place between him and the applicant with regard to the land purchas d by the accused-Prema Singh and that defence witness—Raiendra Prasad as stated in his testimony that he sold the land in dispute to the accus d in August, 2008, which wouid establish that before that the non-appli ant had, no title nor is there any evidence that he was in cultivating posse sion ofthe land under authority. A perusal of the impugned judgm nt dated 26-12-2009 shows that the Court below has recorded a linding thatt e applicant has failed to prove that the land, in respect of which‘ offence is said to have been committed, i HEW, W f‘iTtI v ’ >F'S/M7w—2 ’21)“) ‘ -~! ,00,000, a. .,_.w..a__..,~m....we...“ . , W N @ S hri stava J. a a g n i @ . wwwmwm mm - '51 zoo emm (W)