For the same offence, one conviction and sentence under Section 379, I. P. C. and one conviction and sentence under Section 427, I. P. C. is not necessary.

The revisionists were convicted by Sri S. P. N. Asthana, the then 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Aligarh vide order dated 23-12-1982 passed in criminal case No. 855 of 1981 holding ac cused Murlidhar and Ram Prakash guilty under Sections 379,323 and 472, I. P. C. and awarding them sentence of six months R. I. , three months R. I. and two months R. I. respectively and also sentenced the rest of the revisionists under Sections 379 and 427, I. P. C. for a period of six months R. I. and two months R. I. respectively.

2. On appeal Sri V. S. Kulshreshtha the then learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh vide its order dated 8-3-1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1983 (Roshan Lal and others v. State of U. P and another) set aside the sentence of accused Murlidhar and Ram Prakash under Section 323, I. P. C. and main tained the conviction of all the accused per sons under Sections 379 and 427, I. P. C. but instead of R. I. , sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 379, I. P. C. and Rs. 200/-under Section 427, I. P. C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A. for State and gone through the records. According to the prosecution case, Bihari Lal (complainant) was al lotted 18 Biswa land in Plot No. 61 and 8 Biswa land in plot No. 76 before 14-15 years but before allotment the accused persons used to take benefit from these lands. After this land was converted for cultivation by Bihari Lal, hence the ac cused persons bore enmity with the com plainant. The accused persons were on intimate terms with Sri Ram Prakash Saxena, Lekhpal of the concerned area and wanted to plough the chak-road in col lusion with the Lekhpal along with the allotted land. It is alleged that the com plainant moved an application to this ef fect before the District Magistrate, Aligarh and when the accused persons learnt about the same, then on 20-9-1981 at about 2-3 p. m. the accused side started harvesting the standing paddy crop. When the complainant asked the accused per sons not to damage and harvest the standing crop, then they abused the complainant and accused-revisionists 8 and 9, namely, Mur lidhar and Ram Prakash gave slaps to com plainant and threatened to kill him. The accused persons took away the harvested crop. The complainant had filed a complaint in the Court. The conviction and sentence was partly confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence on record, hence the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists argued that the offence under Section 427 is not made against the ac cused persons because the damage to the crop was not made in the alleged plot of the complainant but was on the chak-road which the complainant wanted to cultivate but the specific evidence is that the ac cused persons harvested the crop from the alleged land of the complainant.

5. The prosecution examined Bihari Lal complainant (P. W. 1); Megh Singh (P. W. 2), Banwari Lal (P. W. 3) and Dalsher (P. W. 4) in order to prove the allegations made against the accused persons.

6. Megh Singh (P. W. 2) has specifically stated in his cross-examination that the ac cused persons had started to harvest the crop from the eastern side and they had harvested the crop for about two hours continuously. They were having their bullock cart in which the harvested crop was taken.

7. Banwari Lal (P. W. 3) corroborated the story of the complainant. . . . . . (sic ). . . . . against accused Murlidhar and Ram Prakash and has found the case under Sec tions 427 and 379, I. P. C. proved against all the revisionists.

8. In pith and substance the offence is one and i. e. the cutting and removal of the crop and for the same offence one convic tion and sentence under Section 379, I. P. C. and one conviction and sentence under Sec tion 427, I. P. C. is not necessary, therefore, the offence under Section 427, I. P. C. is merged under Section 379, I. P. C. and on sentence it may suffice as punishment fo