S. Ali Ahmad, J. This application was admitted only on the question of sentence. Mr. Brajkishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of admission certain important aspects were not brought to the notice of the learned judge, who admitted the application. Those aspects, according to learned counsel, are such, which will vitiate the order of conviction. He also submitted that petitioner no. 11 is an employee of the Central Government and in case his conviction is maintained, he may lose his job. He has drawn my attention to the decisions in the case of Suggi Bind V. The State and Kamaleshwari Thakur V. State wherein it has been held that in exceptional cases, an application which has been admitted only on the question of sentence can be decided on merit also. To me this case appears to be one of the exceptional cases. I, therefore allowed the parties to address me on merit. 2. The petitioners were convicted for an offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months by the trial court. They preferred an appeal to the court of sessions which was heard by the 3rd. Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who dismissed the appeal maintaining the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners harvested unripe paddy crop from plot nos. 15, 16 and 17 of khata No. 26 in village Dumardih. The land admittedly belonged to Jhala Oraon, who had a daughter, who was married to Hula Oraon and was Ghardamad of Jhala Oraon. It is further said that after the death of Jhala Oraon, Hula Oraon came in possession of the land in question. Hula Oraon also had a daughter, whose husband also was a Ghardamad like his father-in-law. According to the prosecution case, after the death of Hula Oraon, his daughter came in possession of the land in question and grew paddy over it which was harvested by the petitioners. The defence, on the other hand, of these petitioners was that they came in possession of the land in question after the death of Jhala Oraon being his reversioners. They said that they had grown the crop which was harvested by them. The defence, on the other hand, of these petitioners was that they came in possession of the land in question after the death of Jhala Oraon being his reversioners. They said that they had grown the crop which was harvested by them. It was also said that the Ghardamad had no right to be in possession of the disputed land and in fact he was never in possession of the land. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined seven witnesses. One witness was also examined on behalf of the defence. Both sides, apart from oral evidence, also adduced documentary evidence to prove possession over the land in question. The court of appeal below while considering the prosecution evidence has held that the prosecution witnesses including the informant herself admitted that every year the petitioners used to harvest paddy from the land in question and they also used to do Dauna on the land. Exts. A and A/1 relate to a Tanaza which took place at the time of survey when the ancestors of the petitioners claimed the disputed land on the basis of title in the year 1932 ordered that Jhala was to remain in possession of the disputed land till his death and after his death the land was to revert to the reversioners, i.e. the petitioners. The learned Additional Judicial commissioner has discarded these exhibits on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that this decision of the revenue court was acted upon. In my opinion, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner was not justified in making that comment. Admittedly, according to the prosecution witnesses, a dispute was going on with regard to title and possession of the disputed land for the last several years and the petitioners were harvesting the crop every year from the land in question. This evidence at least indicated that the petitioners, who undisputedly are the reversioners of Jhala, were asserting their title and possession over the disputed land. In the case of Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao V Biddopalli Lakshminarayana, it has been held that "an Act, does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right". In the case of Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao V Biddopalli Lakshminarayana, it has been held that "an Act, does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right". In this case, on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case and the findings recorded by the court below, I am of the view that at least there was a colour of legal right and the petitioners harvested the paddy in assertion of that colour of legal right. In view of what I have held above, it is not possible to maintain the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners. 5. In the result, the application is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioners under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. Application allowed.