JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal no. 5 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 1994/96 (T.R. No. 639/99), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 143 and 379 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for three months and one year respectively has been dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a land dispute existing prior to the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several documents have been brought on record by the defence but none of the documents have been appreciated. It has been submitted that Exhibit-A, B and C sufficiently proves that the petitioners had the right title and ownership over the said land in question and were in actual possession of the same. It has been submitted that since the land in question belongs to the petitioners the question of attracting an offence u/s 149 and 379 of the I.P.C. does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that most of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution are interested witnesses as either they are the brother of the informant or are the purchasers of the property from the informant. In the alternative an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction the period of sentence be suitably modified in view of the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996. 4. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on 27.10.1996 and 03.11.1996 in village Hathamarhi the petitioners had committed theft of paddy crops. After investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and after the case was transferred to the court of learned Magistrate and on conclusion of the trial the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable u/s 143 and 379 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced accordingly. After investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and after the case was transferred to the court of learned Magistrate and on conclusion of the trial the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable u/s 143 and 379 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Cr. Appeal no. 5 of 2000 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23.05.2001. 5. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Loknath Mahto is the informant whereas P.W.2 Jailal Mahto is his brother. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 have all stated about purchasing the land from the father of the informant. P.W.7 Ayodhya Thakur has stated that the paddy was grown by the informant. P.W.3 Md. Salim had stated that the informant had harvested the paddy. The defence in course of its evidence had filed Exhibit-A series, B, C and D to substantiate their contention that the land in question actually belongs to the petitioners. However, it has been disbelieved by the learned trial court since the exhibits did not point to the land which was the subject matter of the dispute. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that the land in question was in possession of the informant. The informant as well as his brother apart from the other independent witnesses have categorically stated that it was the informant who was in actual possession of the plot in question and had sown the paddy. 6. In view of the fact that the possession of the informant in the alleged disputed land has been established, forcibly cutting and taking away paddy crops by the petitioner did attract an offence punishable u/s 143 and 379 of the I.P.C. and proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides having been made by the learned court below it had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 143 and 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly. The learned appellate court had also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. There being no cause to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction, this application fails so far as the conviction is concerned. 7. The learned appellate court had also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. There being no cause to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction, this application fails so far as the conviction is concerned. 7. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is concerned it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996. The dispute seems to be trivial in nature as it relates to theft of paddy from the field of the informant. The petitioners also have remained for some time in custody. Considering the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.