Heard Miss B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in CA No. 12(3) of 2003. The learned Sessions Judge by the aforesaid judgment affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Silchar, on 30.8.2003 in CR Case No. 2773/2001, whereby, the accused petitioners were convicted and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, S.I. for 15 days for commission of offence u/s 447 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for 30 days for commission of offence u/s 379 IPC. 3. Facts leading to the filing of this revision petition, in brief, may be stated as follows : Sri Nandan Rabidas lodged a complaint before the learned court below alleging that on 19.11.2001 at about 3.30 P.M., the accused petitioners trespassed into his land and harvested premature paddy. When the complaint and his wife and daughter raised objection, the accused petitioners threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter, the accused petitioners removed the paddy worth Rs. 800/- to 900/- from the paddy field belonging to the complainant. The learned trial court recorded the evidence of the witnesses before framing of the charge and upon appreciation of the evidence, framed formal charge u/s 447/379 IPC against the accused petitioners. 4. On conclusion of the trial the accused petitioners were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, against which, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge on due consideration of the appeal preferred by the accused petitioners did not interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. This revision petition is preferred by the accused petitioners as against the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the complainant has failed to prove the identity of the land in question. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the paddy grown in the land was harvested by the accused petitioners as the land belonged to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that Ext. A revealed that there was no Dag like 160(Old) and 160/237 (new) within the Schedule of the disputed land. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the paddy grown in the land was harvested by the accused petitioners as the land belonged to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that Ext. A revealed that there was no Dag like 160(Old) and 160/237 (new) within the Schedule of the disputed land. Therefore the claim of the complainant being the owner of the land is wholly misconceived and therefore the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt. 6. From the evidence of the witnesses it appears that the Executive Magistrate, in a proceeding u/s 145 CrPC, declared the possession in favour of the complainant Nandan Rabidas in respect of the said plot of land. The accused petitioners in their statement u/s 313 CrPC clearly stated that they harvested the paddy from their own plot of land and not from the plot of land belonging to the complainant. The complainant by adducing in his testimony and the testimony of other witnesses has established that the accused petitioners forcibly trespassed into the plot of land belonging to the complainant and harvested immature paddy from the land. Though the accused petitioners asserted that the land belonged to them, but no document whatsoever was placed on record on behalf of the accused petitioners to prima facie establish that the land which was harvested, in fact, belonged to the accused petitioners. More so the accused petitioners also could not prima facie show that there was a dispute in respect of the plot of land which belonged to the complainant Nandan Rabidas. It could not be shown that the accused petitioners were the co-pattadars of the land, which was cultivated by the complainant. Apparently there is no scope to interfere with the findings. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases, for the purpose of correction of manifest illegality or for prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. 7. Considering the matter in its entirety on careful perusal of the materials on record, I do not find sufficient materials to hold that there is incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence, order of the lower courts warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioners stands dismissed. _____________