ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision application, assail (sic ?) is to the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Subdivisional Judge Magistrate, Jajpur, confirmed in appeal by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. ( 2 ) ALLEGATIONS were levelled against the present petitioners and seventeen others they dishonestly removed paddy crops from the land belonging to the complainant-opposite party. The present petitioners laid a claim. that they had purchased the disputed land on 2-6-1984, had grown paddy crops and therefore, there was nothing illicit in their removing the paddy crops. Though the date of occurrence is 8-9-1984 the complaint was filed on 19-9-1984 which is the starting point of the litigation so far as the present case is concerned. ( 3 ) WITNESSES were examined by both the parties in support of their respective stands and on evaluation of the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, came to hold that the charge u/ S. 379 of the Penal Code (In short the 'ipc') was established beyond the shadow of doubt so far as the present petitioners are concerned; but gave benefit of doubt to the other accused persons and acquitted them. Rearing on the question of sentence and on the entitlement of the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, the learned trial Magistrate came to hold that the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was not to be extended to the petitioners, but taking a lenient view sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- each, in default to simple imprisonment for ten days each. ( 4 ) IN appeal, mainly two points were canvassed to assail the correctness of the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate. First point related to the abnormal delay in filing the complaint petition, and the second point related to the assessment of evidence. The appellate court considered both the aspects and came to hold that there was no unexplained delay in filing the complaint and, therefore, no assistance was available to the appellants-petitioners from such delay. So far as the assessment of evidence is concerned, it observed that there was no infirmity and inconsistency in the evidence to warrant any interference. The appellate court considered both the aspects and came to hold that there was no unexplained delay in filing the complaint and, therefore, no assistance was available to the appellants-petitioners from such delay. So far as the assessment of evidence is concerned, it observed that there was no infirmity and inconsistency in the evidence to warrant any interference. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a case where the question is whether there was any dishonest intention for removal of any property, it has to be seen whether the person accused was acting in a bona fide belief and, it was so acting that culpability is not attracted to him. Elaborating it was submitted that the petitioners from the beginning have taken the positive stand that they had bona fide belief that the land belonged to them and, therefore, even though they had removed the paddy, that was not by itself sufficient to find them guilty. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, submitted that on a fair assessment of the evidence both the courts below have come to a definite conclusion that there was no scope for any bona fide belief as claimed and therefore, no interference is warranted. So far as the delay in filing the complaint is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 66 : (1971 Cri LJ 20) Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar, which was considered by me in a case reported in Vol. 32 (1990) OJD 285 (Criminal): Smt. Sulochana Samal v. Ramkrishna Sahu. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that delay in all the cases cannot be fatal to prosecution case and circumstances would vary. ( 6 ) I shall deal with the second contention first. Though the Supreme Court has held in Khedu Mohton's case (supra) that if the complainant takes a plea that because of the police inaction, the filing of the complaint petition was necessitated, materials have to be brought on record to show that in reality information was lodged with police. In the instant case, there was acceptance of removal of paddy by the accused persons. In the instant case, there was acceptance of removal of paddy by the accused persons. Delay in filing a complaint petition or lodging a first-information report is viewed with suspicion because there is scope for embroidering the allegations and making out a false case, which may be far removed from truth. Where, however, in a case of this nature, the occurrence is admitted but a plea of bona fide belief is taken, the mere delay in filing the complaint petition is of no consequence. The reason for delay has been accepted by the appellate court. The conclusion is not erroneous. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case and also the ratio of the case decided by me have, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case. Coming to the controversy relating to the acceptance of the evidence of prosecution, I find that no perversity or non-application of mind to any material aspect can be attracted to the assessment and evaluation of evidence made by the courts below. Even though a different view is available to be drawn from the materials on record, that shall not be a ground for interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. As indicated above, I find no apparent infirmity in the conclusions drawn by the courts below. Therefore, I decline to interfere in this revision application. The conviction is maintained. Residually, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reasons indicated for depriving the petitioners the benefits provided under the Probation of Offenders Act are not germane. I have gone through the report of the Probation Officer. He has indicated that there is likelihood of change in the attitude of the petitioners in course of time. However, he has referred to pendency of some cases against other accused persons who have since been acquitted. It, however, transpires that a proceeding u/ S. 145, Cr. P. C. was sub judice between the present parties in Feb. 1986, when the report was submitted. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations involved in the present case, the background from which the petitioners come and the long passage of time since the occurrence took place, I deem it proper to extend the benefits. P. C. was sub judice between the present parties in Feb. 1986, when the report was submitted. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations involved in the present case, the background from which the petitioners come and the long passage of time since the occurrence took place, I deem it proper to extend the benefits. The sentence shall remain suspended for a period of one year and there shall be no realisation of the fine on each of the petitioners entering into the bond with two sureties of Rs. 2,000/ - (two thousand) each to the satisfaction of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur, and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period as the said Court would direct and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 21-12-1990 for the said purpose. The revision application is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.