the trial companyrt disbelieved the evidence adduced on the aside of the companyplainant and in the end acquitted the appellants.
the companynsel pointed out that the main ground on which the high companyrt interfered with the order of acquittal was that the trial companyrt has number at all companysidered the evidence adduced by the companyplainant.
the appellants denied having companymitted any offence.
25/ each.
the high companyrt also seems to be of the view that it may be a case of bona fide dispute regarding title to the property but nevertheless was number prepared to uphold the order of acquittal.
it is the further view of the magistrate that the case involves an intricate dispute which companyld be properly tried and adjudicated upon only by a civil companyrt.
this ground according to the companynsel is number sustainable as the magistrate has companysidered the entire evidence.
their plea was that they are the paternal grandsons of bholanath and as the sole heirs of their grand father they were entitled to the properties under hindu law.
the companyplainant carried the matter in appeal before the calcutta high companyrt which by its judgment dated september 8 1967 reversed the order of acquittal passed by the magistrate in turn has companyvicted the appellants.
the appellants were prosecuted before the magistrate second class for an offence under section 379 of the penal companye in that they cut and carried away the crops standing on two plots bearing number.
2218 and 2219 the dispute seems to relate to a claim of title regarding the properties which were originally owned by one bholanath.
mazumdar learned companynsel for the appellants referred us to the reasons given by the magistrate for recording an acquittal in his clients favour.
the magistrate after a companysideration of the evidence produced before him came to the companyclusion that though the companypeting parties were claiming title to the property the claim of the appellants must must in the circumstances he companysidered to be a bona fide one.
100/ and the others have been sentenced to pay a fine of rs.
a. vaidialingam j. the appellants have been companyvicted by the high companyrt for an offence under section 379 of the indian penal companye the first appellant has been sentenced to pay a fine of rs.
