JUDGMENT These are two appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 1644 of 1964 is by Maharaj Din, Maharani Din, Ganga, Ghazi, Ram Jatan @ Pilkhidin, Kesho, Ganga Din, Ram Sumer, Ram Narish, Sukhnandan, Hari Shankar and Goli, while Criminal Appeal No. 1656 of 1964 is by Uma Shankar and Hiramani. Both these appeals have been filed against the appellants' conviction and sentence of nine months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default three months further R. I. each under S. 395, Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution, one Smt. Lachhmania owned several plots of arable land in village Bhadrapur, lying within the circle of police station Mau Aima in the District of Allahabad. On her death these plots devolved on her daughter Smt. Chhabbo. On the 28th August 1962 Smt. Chabbo, by a registered sale deed, sold those plots along with some other plots to P. W. 1 Shri Prakash for a sum of Rs. 800/- but she had put the vendee in possession of all those plots in the preceding July and the latter had sown Arhar and Bajra crops thereon. The Bajra crop was reaped in due course, but the Arhar, crop not being ready for harvesting, was allowed to stand till March, 1963. On the 24th March 1968 at about 5 P. M. the appellants came to those plots armed with lathis and started cutting the Arhar crop. While they were cutting the crop P. W. 1 Sri Prakash went there and protested, but the appellants threatened him and went on with the cutting. On the following day P. W. 1 Sri Prakash sent a written report about the incident to the S. P. (Complaints) under registered cover. Thereupon P. W. 8 Rama Shankar, S. I started the investigation of the case and after completing it he submitted a charge-sheet under S. 395, Penal Code against the appellants, and they were, in due course, committed to the court of sessions to stand their trial. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and while some of them pleaded alibi, the others admitted the cutting of the Arhar crops by them. Their case was that they did so, as the plots in question belonged to them and they had sown the said crops on them. 4. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and while some of them pleaded alibi, the others admitted the cutting of the Arhar crops by them. Their case was that they did so, as the plots in question belonged to them and they had sown the said crops on them. 4. The prosecution produced P. W. 1 Sri Prakash, P. W. 2 Jagdish Prasad, P. W. 3 Ram Sewak and P. W. 4 Mathai to prove its case, while the appellants examined D. W. 1 Matanand and D. W. 2 Sheo Shankar to prove their version. The learned trial Judge rejected the prosecution case that the disputed crops were sown by P. W. 1 Sri Prakash, and on the other hand, found that they were sown by some of the appellants. He also found that though the possession of those plots had been delivered to Smt. Chhaboo in the preceding April i. e. April 1962, by the criminal court after the determination of the S. 145, Criminal P.C. proceedings concerning them in her favour, the appellants again trespassed upon them some time in the early part of July 1962 and sowed the disputed crops thereon. On these findings he held that as the sowing of the disputed crops was unlawful, the appellants were not entitled to them, and their cutting and taking them away by force rendered them punishable under S. 395, I. P.C. 5. Relying on these findings, which were not disputed before me either by Sri Kazmi, appearing for the State or Sri P.C. Chaturvedi, appearing for the complainant Sri C. S. Saran learned counsel for the appellants contended that as the appellants trespassed upon the plots of Smt. Chhabboo in the beginning of July 1962 and sowed Bajra and Arhar crops thereon without any objection or hindrance by Smt. Chhaboo and after her P. W 1 Sri Prakash, they were well within their rights in cutting away those crops, and even in using force, if they were prevented from doing so. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that this contention was well founded, and the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 6. Now, on the unchallenged findings of the learned trial Judge the only question which has to be determined is whether the appellants can be held to have committed dacoity of the crops admittedly sown by them. 6. Now, on the unchallenged findings of the learned trial Judge the only question which has to be determined is whether the appellants can be held to have committed dacoity of the crops admittedly sown by them. No doubt the appellants when they started the ploughing of those plots in the early part of July 1962 were guilty of rank trespass, and were liable to be ejected therefrom by the rightful owner, if necessary, by force. But this right was available to the rightful owner only for a limited time after knowledge of the trespass. Smt. Chhaboo who was the rightful owner in possession of those plots till the 28th July 1962, however, did nothing herself, and she acquiesced in the appellants ploughing and tilling her plots. Then came P. W. 1 Sri Prakash, the vendee from Smt. Chhabboo, and he also did nothing for over seven months. In these circumstances the law protests even a rank trespasser in the peaceful enjoyment of the land trespassed upon, and the only remedy of the rightful owner is to take appropriate proceedings in that regard in a court of law. (See Ambika Singh v. State, 1960 All L J 782 : AIR 1961 All 38 ). This being the correct legal position there can, in my opinion, be no manner of doubt that the appellants were fully within their rights in cutting and removing the crops which they had sown on the disputed land with the acquiescence of its rightful owner and they could even use force, if prevented from exercising this legal right of theirs. I am therefore satisfied that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is erroneous and must be set aside. 7. The result therefore is that the conviction and sentence of all the appellants are set aside and their appeals are allowed. The appellants were granted bail for the pendency of their appeals. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are hereby discharged. Appeals allowed.