ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Opposite party did not appear in spite of service of notice. On being requested, Sri R.R.Patnaik, a learned counsel of this Court addresses this Court as amicus curiae.

2. Petitioners, after being convicted by the J.M.F.C., Ken¬drapara in I.C.C.Case No. 112 of 1989/T.R.No. 31 of 1993 for the offences under Secs. 447 and 379, I.P.C. and having failed to obtain order of acquittal from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Criminal Appeal No. 109/25 of 1993, have preferred this revision, challenging the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the Courts below.

3. The opposite party/complainant claiming to be in posses¬sion of plot No. 501 of Khata No. 258 in Mouza Ganeshpur measuring an area of A0.22 decimals alleged that on 25.4.1989 in the morning at 7 a.m., the petitioners trespassed into that plot and uprooted and removed the green gram crop grown by the oppo¬site party. After considering the materials on record charge under Secs. 447 and 379, I.P.C. was framed against the petition¬ers. They denied to the allegations and claimed for trial.

4. During the course of trial, opposite party examined three witnesses inc