JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This is a revision against the Appellate judgment dated 28-9-1966 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 207 C of 1965 maintaining the conviction and sentence of all the four Petitioners u/s 426 Indian Penal Code and the further conviction and sentence of Petitioners Dhobai Biswal and Dibakar Biswal u/s 379, Indian Penal Code passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Kendrapara. 2. The prosecution case started in, brief is that the Petitioners cut and damaged the northern fence of the complainant's Bari, and thereafter caused damage to the plantain trees and vegetable plants in the said Bari, which is the eastern half of plot No. 1031 in mouza Jadupur. It is further alleged against the Petitioners that they demolished the complainant's cow-shed in the Bari, and removed its materials without heeding the protest and remonstrance of the complainant. 3. The defence plea was a complete denial of the occurrence. The Petitioners asserted that the disputed land belonged to them and was under their possession. 4. Mr. R.C. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the above criminal case against the Petitioners was instituted on 7.8.1964 when a Title Suit (Title Suit No. 46 of 19(3) filed by the complainant against Sushila, the vendor of the Petitioners, and others, comprising the disputed lands amongst other lands was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack. On this it is contended by Mr. Mohanty that the complainant being the Plaintiff in the said suit his possession or even his right to possess a portion of plot No. 1031 was in dispute, and as such the accused persons being the purchasers from Sushila, the admitted owner of plot No. 1031 could not be convicted of the above offences. The civil suit filed by the complainant on 22-4-1963 is a partition suit where the complainant as Plaintiff prayed for the partition by meters and bounds an the available joint family properties including plot No. 1031. In the present criminal case, the Court was concerned with the actual physical possession of the complainant of the eastern portion of plot No. 1031. In the present criminal case, the Court was concerned with the actual physical possession of the complainant of the eastern portion of plot No. 1031. The pendency of the above-mentioned partition suit at the time when this criminal case was instituted would Dot in any way affect the trial of the criminal case, and is also not suggestive of the fact that the complainant was not sure of the possession of his portion of plot No. 1031. In a case like this, it is for the Court of fact to direct its attention to the fact of possession of the disputed land, and to find out on a careful examination of the evidence on record, if really the complainant was or was not in possession of the disputed land. Having gone through be judgments of the Courts below, I am satisfied that both the Courts have directed their attention to this aspect of the case, and have found on cogent and reliable evidence that plot No. 1031 belonged jointly to Sushila Bewa and Krupasindhu the complainant, and that the disputed eastern portion of the said plot was actually in possession of the complainant at the time this criminal case was filed. Apart from the oral evidence of the witnesses testifying the possession of the complainant of the eastern portion of plot No. 1031, it can also be seen from Ext. 1, a sale deed, executed by Sushila on 19-12-1961 in favour of Gobinda Biswal (P.W. 4), that the complainant was in occupation of the eastern portion of the Raid plot of land. Thus the Courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the complainant was actually in physical possession of the eastern portion of plot No. 1031. As ownership and possession of the eastern portion of plot No. 1031 is found in favour of the complainant, the contention raised by (sic) R.C. Mohanty as stated above is of no avail. 5. Mr. Mohanty again contended that the Courts below having lost sight of the significant statement in Ext. 1 that Sushila sold away only the northern portion of plot No. 1031 to Gobinda Biswal (P.W. 4), have arrived at an absolutely incorrect finding. 5. Mr. Mohanty again contended that the Courts below having lost sight of the significant statement in Ext. 1 that Sushila sold away only the northern portion of plot No. 1031 to Gobinda Biswal (P.W. 4), have arrived at an absolutely incorrect finding. In view of the evidence on record and the positive assertion of P.W. 4 that he took possession of the western portion of the above plot purchased by him, which was separated by a demarcating fence, it is abundantly clear that P.W. 4 was in possession of the western portion and the complainant was in possession of the eastern portion of the said plot, and the statement in Ext. I to the contrary is a mistake. There is therefore not much force in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mohanty. 6. It is significant to note here that Sushila Bewa, having earlier Bold away her eight annas share in favour of Gobinda Biswal on 9-1-1961, had no right to sell away the other portion of the said plot in possession of the complainant, in favour of the Petitioner on 26-4-1963, after the institution of the civil suit by the complainant on 22-4-1963. This fact by itself suggests that the sale effected by Sushila Bewa by Ext. D in favour of the Petitioners is fraudulent and may also be a collusive one. From this fact taken along with the evidence on record it is evident that the Petitioners did not actually have possession of the above plot, and as such did not have any right to disturb the possession of the complainant as alleged against them. In view of the discussion made above and after going through the judgments of both the Courts below and the salient features of the evidence on record, loan, without hesitation, accept the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below that the allegations against the Petitioners have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. 7. There is thus no merit in this revision and as such the conviction and the sentence of the Petitioners as passed are hereby maintained the revision in accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed