The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and the court's interpretation of the basic ingredients of the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. Gouri Debi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State.

3. This Criminal Revision petition has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and sentence dated 20.02.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 82 of 2013 affirming the judgment of conviction and order dated 18.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa in C/1 Case No. 46/2009 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 447 and 427 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and one year’s Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. It has also been directed that in default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner has to undergo 3 months and 1 month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.

Argument on behalf of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has failed to properly consider the sale-deed which was filed by the defence bearing sale-deed dated 19.08.2008 (Exhibit-A) while convicting the petitioner in view of the fact that the complainant as well as the opposite party no. 2 were claiming title on the same land by virtue of different title deeds. She submits that apparently there was title dispute with regard to the land between the parties and accordingly the present case calls for interference as the entire dispute is in the realm of civil dispute.

5. In the alternative, on the point of sentence , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 49 days out of the maximum period of conviction being one year and since the present case is of the year 2009 , accordingly, the petitioner has faced the rigorous of the criminal case for more than ten years. She submits that as per the records of this case, there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the petitioner is also ready to deposit any fine amount if this Court is pleased to modify the sentence of the petitioner by enhancing the fine amount considering the facts and circumstances of this case.

Argument on behalf of the opposite party- State

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that the learned courts below have duly considered both the sale-deeds, of the complainant as well as the defence. He submits that while convicting the petitioner, the learned court below has recorded that the complainant was claiming the property by virtue of sale-deed of the year 1972 coupled with possession and the petitioner was not in possession of the property. The learned counsel submits that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence by this Court and come to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction. He also submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements calling for any interference by this court.

7. So far as the point of sentence is concerned , the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that in case this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, the fine amount may not be less than Rs. 5,000/-.

Findings of this Court

8. The present case was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner. It has been alleged that the complainant was a sole owner and in possession of a piece of land acquired by the complainant from its erstwhile owner namely, Sokra Gope by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 29.03.1972 (Exhibit-1) for valuable consideration. Thereafter, the complainant became the absolute owner of the land and in cultivating possession of the