ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the opposite party-State.

3. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.04.2008 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila, in G.R. Case No.377 of 1998/T.R. No.196 of 2008, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 144 and 379/34 of IPC. The petitioners have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 ½ years for offence under section 144 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under section 379 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine , they have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. Learned court below has also directed for payment of Rs.3,000/- each to the informant as compensation and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. The petitioners have also challenged the appellate Courts’ judgment dated 5.08.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Ghatshila in Cr. Appeal No.80 of 2008, whereby the judgment and sentence passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila has been affirmed.

Arguments of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing the arguments submitted that there is allegation of theft of paddy crop valued maximum at Rs.12,000/-, though different witnesses have given different version, so far as the value of paddy crop is concerned. He submits that there was land dispute between the parties, which led to the alleged occurrence and considering this aspect of the matter, the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as they have been falsely implicated. He submits that the paddy crop was also not seized and accordingly the prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts.

6. Without prejudiced to the aforesaid submissions on merit, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the FIR is dated 5.11.1998 and the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 9.04.2008 by the learned trial court and at the time of conviction, the age of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 was 50, 45 and 35 years respectively and accordingly, their present age is 63, 58 ad 48 years respectively. He submits that the petitioners have faced the rigor of criminal case for about 22 years and they do not have any criminal antecedent and accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence of the petitioners may be modified.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating the materials on record and there are enough materials produced from the side of prosecution regarding right, title, interest and possession over the property in favour of the informant and apart from making the oral statement that there was land dispute between the parties, no document as such was produced from the side of defence, to claim any right, title, interest and possession over the property. He submits that considering the facts and circumstance of this case, there is enough materials to show that the land in question was in possession of the informant party and they had grown paddy crop, but the same was forcibly taken away by the accused persons and they had come to the place of occurrence armed with bow and arrow and accordingly, they have been convicted for offence under Sections 144 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal code. She submits that the im