IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.215 of 2002 ********* (Against the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2001 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Appeal No.16/2000) 1. Deo Narain Chaudhary, son of late Banai Chaudhary. 2. Tuntun Chaudhary, son of Deonarain Chaudhary 3. Mantun Chaudhary, son of Deonarain Chaudhary 4. Bablu Chaudhary @ Pramod Chaudhary, son of Deonarain Chaudhary. 5. Dilip Chaudhary, son of late Satyanarain Chaudhary. (All resident of village-Ukahi (Dorma), P.S.-Bihra, District- Saharsa) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Umesh Chaudhary, son of Sri Rajendra Chaudhary, resident of village-Ukahi (Dorma) P.S.-Bihra, District- Saharsa. .... .... Opposite Parties. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No.16/2002 whereby the order dated 10.08.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in Complaint Case No.792 C/1996, Trial No.396/2000 for the offence punishable under Sections Patna High Court CR. REV. No.215 of 2002 dt.26-08-2011 2 347, 348 and 379 of the I.P.C. directing the petitioners to furnish bond of Rs.3000/-with two sureties for a period of two years under the Probation of Offenders Act to maintain peace and public tranquility has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case no.792 C/96 alleging therein that Jitni Devi, wife of Raghunath Chaudhary executed a sale-deed with respect to land measuring 2 Kathas, 12 Dhurs and 15 Dhurkis on 19.08.1996 in favour of his brother Dinesh Chaudhary. After the execution of the sale-deed, the vendee was given possession over the land alongwith the standing paddy crops. The paddy crops became ready for harvesting. On 27.11.1996 at about 9.00 A.M., the accused and others armed with various weapons came to the aforesaid land and the accused Dev Narayan Chaudhary asked the co- accused to loot the crops. The accused and others started harvesting the paddy crops, which was protested by the complainant. Thereafter, all the accused assaulted him and snatched wrist watch, wrapper and Rs.400/-. Looting of the paddy crops caused a loss of Rs.1500/-. After inquiry, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.215 of 2002 dt.26-08-2011 3 cognizance was taken. Summons was issued against the accused. After the trial, all the accused were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 379 of the I.P.C. After hearing on the question of sentence, all the accused were released on furnishing surety of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount for maintaining peace and public tranquility for two years. Thereafter, the accused petitioners have preferred Cr. Appeal No.16/2000, which was dismissed by the impugned order without interfering with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the petitioners had also purchased the some land from the members of the same family and as such, both the complainant and accused persons have claimed right, title and interest over the same, as a result, standing paddy crops was harvested and was taken by the petitioners. The learned trial court has committed a serious error by holding that the complainant was having right, title and possession over the land in dispute on account of being first purchaser, whereas, the accused is the second Patna High Court CR. REV. No.215 of 2002 dt.26-08-2011 4 purchaser. The accused persons have purchased the part of the land in dispute from the daughter of Jitnit Devi, which was proved in course of the trial. As such, there was a civil dispute and the criminal proceeding ought to have been dropped as the only competent civil court could have decided the dispute. He has further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioners have committed any overt act, after passing of the impugned order and the period of bond has also expired. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that there is concurrent finding by both the courts below. It is admitted position that the complainant had purchased the land prior to the alleged purchase made by the accused purchaser. Therefore, the complainant was the owner of the land and it was also in his possession. No interference in the impugned order is required. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has considered the evidence on record. As such, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, so far as the conviction part of the judgment is concerned. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.215 of 2002 dt.26-08-2011 5 There is no material on the record to show that after the order passed by the learned trial court, the accused petitioners have committed any overt act and the period of bond has also expired. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is made clear that since the period of bond has already expired and there is no material on the record to show that the petitioners have committed any overt act after passing of the judgment and order by the learned trial court, the petitioners will not be required to furnish any probation bond as directed by the court below. With this modification in the impugned order, this revision application is disposed of. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 28th of August, 2011 NAFR/V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)