Judgment ORDER :- The petitioner has been convicted under Sec. 426 of the Penal Code, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the petitioner and others harvested green paddy crops grown by Badri Narain Jha (P.W. 1) on the lands in question. The petitioner's case was that he was in possession of the lands as a bataidar, and that he, therefore, was entitled to harvest the crops as he did. 3. On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the Courts below have held that the lands in question were in the possession of Badri Narain Jha. The defence adduced oral evidence, and also produced some receipts; but the Courts below have disbelieved the oral evidence, and have held that the receipts are not genuine. 4. The first point which the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged is that there is hardly any evidence to show that the paddy crops which were harvested were green and were not ripe. The trying Magistrate has stated that the paddy crops were green, and this does not appear to have been challenged before the appellate Court. Even supposing, however, that the paddy crops which the petitioner harvested were ripe, I am unable to accept the learned counsel's contention that the offence of mischief under Sec. 426 has not been made out. The offence has been defined in Section 425 as follows : "Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits 'mischief'. 5. The learned Advocate has urged that, if the paddy crops which the petitioner harvested and took away were ripe, there was no diminution to its value. All that happened was that the value was transferred from the person who grew the crops, namely, Badri Narain Jha, to the petitioner, and that, therefore, the offence may be one of theft punishable under Sec. 379 but not an offence of mischief punishable under Sec. 426. In my judgment, this argument is unsound. All that happened was that the value was transferred from the person who grew the crops, namely, Badri Narain Jha, to the petitioner, and that, therefore, the offence may be one of theft punishable under Sec. 379 but not an offence of mischief punishable under Sec. 426. In my judgment, this argument is unsound. Although theft may have been committed in respect of the crops which were actually harvested and taken away, a change was caused in the land itself whereby its produce was completely taken away, and the value of the produce was lost. It is noteworthy that the offence of mischief is not committed in respect of movable property only as the offence of theft is committed, but it may be committed in respect of immovable property also. If, therefore, the facts are considered from the point of view of the land in which the crops stood, there can be no doubt that the petitioner harvested and took away the crops with intent to cause loss to Badri Narain Jha, and actually caused him loss of the value of the produce by causing a change in the property by cutting the crops. The offence of mischief must, therefore, be held to have been made out, even if the paddy crops were ripe, though the offence of theft also must be held to have been made out. 6. The learned Advocate has relied upon two decisions of Jwala Prasad, J. in support of his contention. Those decisions are Talewar Chowdhry v. Emperor, 2 Pat LW 49 : (AIR 1917 Pat 336) and Gainu Pandey v. Emperor, 2 Pat LT 394. Those cases are distinguishable as the accused were held to have had a bona fide claim of right. There are some observations in them, however, which appear to show that a person who cuts ripe paddy cannot be held to be guilty of mischief. With the greatest respect for the learned Judge, I am unable to agree with this view. The observations of the learned Judge are to the effect that the offence of mischief could only be made out if some 'deterioration' is caused to the crops, i.e., to the value or utility of the fruit. With the greatest respect for the learned Judge, I am unable to agree with this view. The observations of the learned Judge are to the effect that the offence of mischief could only be made out if some 'deterioration' is caused to the crops, i.e., to the value or utility of the fruit. It does not appear to have been considered whether the offence of mischief could not be made out on the basis that change was effected so as to destroy the value of the produce from the point of view of the land. 7. Learned counsel has next attempted to take me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the question of possession. I have looked into the evidence of some of those witnesses; but I do not see any good reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Courts below that Badri Narain Jha was in possession, and had grown the crops which were harvested and looted by the petitioner. He has also tried to show that the receipts filed by the petitioner could have been held to be genuine; but I do not see any good reason to differ from the conclusions of the Courts below even on this point. 8. The last point which has been urged is the question of sentence. It seems to me that there is some room for reduction in the sentence. I, accordingly, reduce the sentence to a fine of Rs. 100/-, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. With this modification in the sentence, the application is dismissed. Sentence reduced.