Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revisions is directed against the judgment dated 6-6-1992 passed by 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 38/90 thereby and there under all these appellants were found guilty u/s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and thus the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court that is Sri S. Ahmad. Judicial Magistrate. 1st class. Ranchi in Complaint case No. 61/86 was confirmed and maintained. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that the complainant Lal Satya Narayan Nath Shahdeo who is here opposite party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint claiming that R.S. Plot Nos. 2285, 2286, 367, 368 of village Koinara P.S. Leoung belonged to him and he had grown paddy crop on these lands but these petitioners on 28-11-1986 forcibly cut the paddy crop and removed the same. 3. The petitioners claimed themselves innocent and denied to -have cut and removed the paddy crop and also claimed bona fide right over the disputed land but the trial Court that is, Sri S. Ahmad. Judicial Magistrate 1st class. Ranchi vide his judgment dated 4th May. 1990 found these appellants guilty under Sec. 379. IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and that conviction and sentence was confirmed by the 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 38/90 and. thus this revision had been preferred. 4. At the time of hearing of this revision learned counsel for the petitioners frankly submitted that this is a case of paddy cutting and the petitioners are all tribal and they are facing trial right from 1987 or so. In that view of the matter, substantive sentence of one year is definitely excessive and unwarranted. Learned lawyer for the complainant also submitted that he will have no objection if some lenient view is taken against the petitioner and they may be released on probation but they must maintain peace and good behaviour. 5. Considering these submissions of learned counsel for both the parties though the petitioners are found guilty under Sec. 379. Learned lawyer for the complainant also submitted that he will have no objection if some lenient view is taken against the petitioner and they may be released on probation but they must maintain peace and good behaviour. 5. Considering these submissions of learned counsel for both the parties though the petitioners are found guilty under Sec. 379. IPC but the substantive sentence of one year R.I. as recorded by the trial Court and duly confirmed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 38/90 is here by set aside and modified to the extent that all the petitioners will execute bonds of Rs. 2000.00 with one surety of the like amount within three months from today in the trial Court itself or his successor and should undertake to maintain peace and good behaviour for period of one year failing which they will be called upon to receive to sentence. Accordingly this revision is allowed in part so far the sentence is concerned.