JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sajid Yunus, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. K. Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 15.03.1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1993 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal, Sahebganj in G.R. Case No. 61 of 19985 convicting the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution case as it appears is that the informant had purchased eleven kathas of land in his name and in the name of his wife by virtue of two registered sale deed in the year 1965 and 1963 from the petitioner no. 1 and since then he was coming in the cultivating possession of the same. It is alleged that on 19.03.1985 the accused persons had harvested the standing wheat crop from the land in spite of protest made by the informant. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation G. R. Case No. 61 of 1985 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted pursuant to which cognizance was taken and after charge was framed trial proceeded. The learned trial court on being satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt had convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and one month respectively. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1993 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj on 15.03.1997. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution has failed to prove that the land in question belong to the informant as the same was also disputed by the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Plot Nos. 42 and 43 are Damin land which are not transferable under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act and this fact could have been ascertained by the Investigating Officer of the case if he was examined. It has been stated that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence. 42 and 43 are Damin land which are not transferable under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act and this fact could have been ascertained by the Investigating Officer of the case if he was examined. It has been stated that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel further submits that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution all are interested witnesses and as such their testimony cannot be relied upon. It has therefore, been submitted that since there was a dispute existing with respect to the possession of the land in question the petitioners could not have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. It is the categorical case of the prosecution that Plot Nos. 42 and 43 were purchased by the informant in his name and in the name of his wife in the year 1963 and 1965 respectively. The informant who has examined as P.W.-5 has specifically stated about the aforesaid facts as well as the forcible harvesting of wheat crop from the plots in question by the petitioners. The version of the informant has been supported by the other witnesses P.W.-2 and P.W.-4. P.W. 2 is also an eye-witness to the occurrence who had seen the incident of forcible cutting away the wheat crop by the petitioners. Although the defence has taken a plea that the land was not transferable but save and except adducing an oral evidence being D.W. 1 no documentary evidence or any further evidence was produced by the defence to substantiate such contentions. The evidence produced by the prosecution thus being unrebutted has been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code. In such view of the matter, therefore, no interference is necessitated in the impugned judgment passed by the learned courts below with respect to the order of conviction has been passed against the petitioners. 7. However, as regards the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners have remained for sometime in custody after the dismissal of their appeal. 7. However, as regards the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners have remained for sometime in custody after the dismissal of their appeal. The case was instituted in the year 1985 and the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case for more than three decades. On such consideration as well as on consideration of the sentence awarded to the petitioners the same is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.