JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - All the three Petitioners have been convicted inter Section 379, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one month each by a Magistrate, Third Class, Sundargarh. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence passed on Petitioner No. 1. He has reduced the sentence passed on Petitioners 2 and 3 to a fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 15 days. The case of the complainant opposite party (Balmati Majhiani) is that the disputed land belonged to her husband. She was away from the village after the death of her husband and came back and stayed in the village for about 6 to 8 years before the occurrence She grew the paddy and the Petitioners forcibly reaped away the same on 10-12-1970. The defence of Petitioner No. 3 who is a servant of Petitioners 1 and 2 is one of denial. Petitioners 1 and 2 took the plea that they were in possession of the land and grew the crop. They did not specifically say anything whether they removed the crop. 2. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the prosecution case has been established beyond reasonable doubt and that the complainant grew the crop and the accused persons forcibly reaped away the same. Mr. Misra for the Petitioners assailed the factual finding with reference to the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2 and d.w. 1 and contended that at the time of sowing there was dispute amongst the parties and a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and this fact would establish that the opposite party was not in possession and did not grow the crop clod as such a conviction u/s 379, Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. After perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses I am satisfied that there is no material to conclude that the disturbance at the time of sowing was of such a character so as to dispossess the complainant. The mere fact that some trouble arose is not enough to hold that the complainant was dispossessed and that she did not sow the paddy. There is abundant evidence in support of her case that she grew the crop and that has been accepted by the Courts? below. The mere fact that some trouble arose is not enough to hold that the complainant was dispossessed and that she did not sow the paddy. There is abundant evidence in support of her case that she grew the crop and that has been accepted by the Courts? below. The fact that there was some trouble would not be enough to come to a contrary conclusion. The conviction is not assailed on any other ground and is accordingly affirmed. 3. As to the question of sentence Mr. Misra contended that Petitioner No. 3 is a labourer and he should not be convicted and sentenced. The bald contention is untenable in law. Law is now well settled that if any labourer enters the land without having knowledge about the guilty animus of the master then he is entitled to an acquittal and for that purpose the labourer must himself take a defence that he had entered the land but did not know that the complainant had grown the crop. The defence of Petitioner No. 3 is a mere denial and in this context his conviction, cannot be set aside. The sentence imposed upon him is one of Rs. 50/- and does not require any modification. 4. As to Petitioner No. 1 Mr. Misra contended that he does not dispute the title of the complainant, but as he was in long possession he reaped away the crop. Facts are somewhat tell-tale in this case. it appears that taking advantage of the fact that the complements was a widow the Petitioner No. 1 was emboldened to take law into his own hands. In the circumstances the sentence of imprisonment is quite justified and does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed