JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Petitioner No. 1 is the landlord. Petitioner No. 2 Agani Das, is his bhag-chasi and Petitioner No. 3 was engaged in paddy cutting on the date of occurrence which is on 2-12-162. They were convicted under Sections 379 and 447, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and Rs. 50, in difficult to undergo R.I. for 2 months and one month under Sections 37 and 447 respectively. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction under both the sections but set aside the sentence of payment of fine u/s 447 on the ground that no separate sentence was called for in the facts and circumstances of this case. Against the appellate order, the criminal revision has been filed 2. The disputed lands constitute 2.91 acres. The complainant (p.w.1) purchased the same from one Kartik under a registered sale deed (Ext. 1) dated 30-3-1962. It is the case of p.w.1 that he grew the crop after his purchase. But on 2-12.1962, the Petitioners reaped away the crop. Kartik claimed this property as having inherited after the death of Aparti, the widow of Nalu, his own maternal uncle. Complainant's case is that Aparti was in possession of the Disputed lands till her death sometime after 1943. After her, Kartik came into possession and he is in possession after his purchase. Petitioners admitted that they had cut away the crop on 2-12.1962 as alleged by the prosecution. Their case, however, is that Agani Das (Petitioner. 2), as bhag-chasi of the landlord (Petitioner No. 1), grew the crop and was in possession of the disputed lands, for the last 10 to 12 years. 3. The Courts below concurrently accepted the prosecution version. Reliance was placed by them on a number of documents in favour of the complainant. Ext. 6 is a rent receipt dated 19-8-138 purporting to have been issued by Petitioner No. 1 (Landlord to Aparti in respect of Holding No. 109 with an area 9'8 acres. Ext. 6/1 is another rent-receipt dated 9-3-1941 in respect of Khata No. 109 with an area 7.59 acres. Ext. 6/2 is a rent-receipt dated 9-7-1952 issued by the landlord in favour of Kartik in respect of Khata No. 109 in respect of 4.28 acres. Ext. Ext. 6/1 is another rent-receipt dated 9-3-1941 in respect of Khata No. 109 with an area 7.59 acres. Ext. 6/2 is a rent-receipt dated 9-7-1952 issued by the landlord in favour of Kartik in respect of Khata No. 109 in respect of 4.28 acres. Ext. 2 dated 5-11-1961 is a certificate notice issued by the Tahasildar to Kartik for recovery of arrears of rent after the vesting of the estate in respect of 4'28 acres. These rent-receipts were exhibited through p.w.6. He did not himself grant the receipts. Though he tried to read them, he ultimately admitted that he could not read them. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the rent-receipts as having been proved. That apart, exts. 6/2 and 2, which are important ones, relate to 4'28 acres. There is nothing in evidence that they relate to the suit lands. For these reasons, I place no reliance on those documents. The Courts below were not alive to this aspect of the case and did not critically examine the documents. On the defence side, reliance was placed on a sale deed ext. B dated 17-7-1925 executed by Aparti in favour of Soudamini, a sister of Nalu. Defence case is that Soudamini presented this document for mutation, but as she died, no mutation could be effected and the landlord came into possession of the ka lands covered by ext. B. This part of the story has not been established by the defence. Defence further relied on a registered lease-deed (ext. A) dated 15-3-143 executed by Petitioner No. 1 in favour of the wife of Kartik in respect of 0'90 acre. The original of this document was not called for and a certified copy has been produced. No satisfactory evidence has been adduced. Exts. A and B are accordingly excluded from consideration. 4. After all these documents are excluded from consideration, the entire case is to he decided on the oral evidence of the parties. Removal of crop being admitted, the only question for consideration is as to who grew the crop. Complainant examined p. ws. 3, 4 and 5 in support of his case that he grew the crop. The learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the oral evidence critically. The learned Magistrate has overlooked the weak points of p. ws. 3 and 4. After having gone through the evidence I am satisfied that p. ws. 3 and 4 are unreliable. Complainant examined p. ws. 3, 4 and 5 in support of his case that he grew the crop. The learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the oral evidence critically. The learned Magistrate has overlooked the weak points of p. ws. 3 and 4. After having gone through the evidence I am satisfied that p. ws. 3 and 4 are unreliable. P.w.4 frankly admitted that though some lands of Petitioner No. 1 was adjacent to the disputed lands in south, he was not in a position to say as to who was cultivating that land. In the circumstances his evidence regarding possession of the disputed lands cannot be accepted. P.w.1 admits that one Susama has got her lands to the east and west of the disputed lands. P.w.3 says that he cannot say whether Susama has any land near the disputed lands. P.w.1 appears to have purchased some land from the sister of p.w.3. P.w.1 admits that the sister has filed a suit-bo against p. ws. 1 and 3 alleging fraud. P.w.3 states that he does not know if such a suit has been filed. No reliance can be placed on the evidence of p.w.3. P.w.5 is another witness to possession. He clearly states that he has got land to the east of the disputed lands. Kinu Lenka (p.w.1) is possessing the disputed lands for the last 2 years. Before that Aparti was possessing the land and after her death, her nephew Kaitik possessed the land. He stood the test of cross-examination and his evidence remains unassailable. On the side of the defence three witnesses were examined regarding possession. They are d. ws. 1, 2 and 4. D.w.4, the Gumasta of Petitioner No. 1, admitted in cross. examination that he had no knowledge of the possession of the disputed lands and as to who grew the crop. D. ws. 1 and 2 are admittedly bhag-chasis under Petitioner No. 1. They are not independent witnesses. That apart, p. w 1 in an unguarded moment in his cross-examination stated that before Kinu, Kartik was in possession of the disputed land. Though there is no clear and unequivocal admission, the sentence conveys the idea that p.w.1 was in possession of the disputed lands. Even if the sentence is not capable of such a construction, the fact remains that d. ws.l and 2 are not independent witnesses. Though there is no clear and unequivocal admission, the sentence conveys the idea that p.w.1 was in possession of the disputed lands. Even if the sentence is not capable of such a construction, the fact remains that d. ws.l and 2 are not independent witnesses. Taking the evidence as a whole, therefore, I am inclined to confirm the findings of the Courts below that the complainant was in possession of and grew the crop in the disputed lands on the sole testimony, of p.w.5 5. Mr. Kanungo contended that even if the complainant was found to have grown the crop, the conviction should not lie maintained as the accused having a bona fide dispute removed the crop. In support of this contention he placed reliance on Harihar Narain Singh and Others Vs. Bankery Singh where a learned single Judge of the Patna High Court observed: Generally speaking the question who grew the crop is the first matter to look to, but it is not the only thing in all cases. The question of title though secondary is relevant and so is the state of evidence as regards past possession. No exception can be taken to the aforesaid dictum. In the facts of that particular case, however, there was a finding that there was dispute between the parties between the years 1910 and 141. The complainant in that case did not adduce any evidence of prior possession. Only one sentence to that effect occurred in the cross-examination of the complainant himself. The vendor of the complainant was not examined. Thus there being prior dispute between the parties and absence of evidence as to the possession prior to the date of rowing the crop in the disputed year, his Lordship held that the conviction could not be sustained even though the finding was in favour of the complainant that he grew the crop. The defence story of cutting away the crop in that case was not considered as mere colourable pretence but one in exercise of a dispute which was bona fide. This principle has been fully discussed by this Court in Binayak Swain and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi 31 C.L.T. 601, where all the relevant decisions have been reviewed. 6. In this case, such a question, however, does not arise. The Petitioners have failed to establish that they had a bona fide dispute. This principle has been fully discussed by this Court in Binayak Swain and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi 31 C.L.T. 601, where all the relevant decisions have been reviewed. 6. In this case, such a question, however, does not arise. The Petitioners have failed to establish that they had a bona fide dispute. On the evidence of p.w.5, the position is clear that not only the complainant grew the crop in the disputed year, but before him Kartik, his vendor, was in possession. There is absolutely no reliable evidence that the Petitioners 1 and 2 were in possession of the disputed lands. Doubtless Kartik has not been examined in this case. That might have affected the prosecution version if there was no reliable evidence costs to the factum of prior possession and of growing of crop in the disputed year. This case does not come within the exception as referred to in Harihar Narain Singh and Others Vs. Bankery Singh. I find no substance in the contention of Mr. Kanungo. 7. In the result, the criminal revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed