Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.11 of 1998 IN 12/98 ~~~~~~ Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.01.1998 passed by Sri N. K. Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate - 2nd Class, Siwan in C. No. 261 of 1996/Tr. No. 101 of 1998. ~~~~~~ Dinesh Mishra, Son of Ramdutt Mishra, resident of village – Kolhua, Police Station – Daraunda, District – Siwan. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. Krishna Mishra. 2. Gautam Mishra. Both sons of Mahendra Mishra. 3. Mahendra Mishra, Son of Late Laxmi Mishra. 4. Om Prakash Mishra, Son of Krishna Mishra. 5. Prabhu Nath Mishra, Son of Late Chandrado Mishra. All residents of village – Kolhua, Police Station – Daraunda, District – Siwan. 6. The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondents. ~~~~~~ Appearance : For the Appellant : M/s. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate. R. K. Dubey, Advocate. Mrs. S. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ~~~~~~ P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by Sri N. K. Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate - 2nd Class, Siwan in C. No. 261 of 1996/Tr. No. 101 of 1998 in a case of theft of crop cutting. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that the complainant has acquired the land by a deed of gift and has grown crop which was theft away by the accused persons. The defence of the accused persons is that they are claiming of land on the basis of Mahadnama and the land was given in their possession as part performance 2 of the contract for sale. 4. The trial court took into consideration the evidence of the brother of the complainant, who is also a co-sharer has stated that they do not plough the land and had given the land on Batai. He has also stated that he has good relation with the Bataidars and all the Bataidars belongs to the village. However, none of the Bataidars have been examined to depose that they had grown the crops and they did not protest at the time of harvesting the crop or alleged theft when it take about six hours in cutting the crop and hence hold that the prosecution has not been proved. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the person who cultivated the land came in possession of the land by virtue of execution of decree and he has stated that he has the right over the land. However, it is pertinent to mention that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide the title or claim of possession and only thing which is relevant is that who has grown the crop and who is in actual and physical possession of the land. However, the trial court has considered the issue in proper perspective and taken into consideration the fact that the brother of the complainant who is also the co-sharer depose that the land was in Batai and the Bataidar has not come to support the prosecution case that they grown the crop. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 21st October, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.