JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are altogether 15 petitioners in the present petition and they were convicted for offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment vide judgment dated 14.06.2013. He further submitted that the learned appellate court has maintained the order of conviction, but has modified the sentence by directing that the petitioners would execute bond and has extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and directed them to furnish bonds of Rs. 5,000/- for maintaining peace and good behaviour for one year. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below have not properly appreciated the evidences on record and in fact there was bona-fide land dispute between the parties. 4. The learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned judgments have no illegality and infirmity and do not call for any interference. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that on 24-11-2003, the Complainant (PW-2) presented a Complaint being P.C.R. Case No. 339/2003 against the petitioners and one Mehata Goswami (died in 2010 and his name was deleted by the trial court vide order dated 18-12-2012) before the court of the learned C.J.M. at Jamtara alleging inter-alia that the Complainant had obtained the land bearing Plot No. 14 of AKJ No. 29 by way of Bhugatbandha Deed registered vide B. Deed No. 326 dated 19-03-2002 from Jagbandhu Gossain and he came in peaceful possession over the land and grew paddy crops therein. When the petitioners created trouble over the land, the Complainant had filed a petition being Crl. Misc. Case No. 2214/03 before the S.D.O. Jamtara which was sent to O/c Bindapathar P.S. for taking necessary action. On 22-11-2003 at 02:00 A.M. to 08:00 A.M., the petitioners formed a group and forcibly entered into his land with lathi, bow and arrow, bhala and hasuli and began to cut the standing paddy crops of the Complainant and took away 50 mounds of paddy crops valued at Rs. 5,000/- from his land to the Khalihan of the Petitioner No. 1. 6. 5,000/- from his land to the Khalihan of the Petitioner No. 1. 6. On 30-05-2005, cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of IPC was taken against all the accused persons and summons was ordered to be issued against them. On 06-09-2007, the charge under Section 379 of IPC was framed against the petitioners and Meheta Goswami and were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial, the Complainant examined altogether two witnesses namely, Laljee Mahato as PW-1 and Shombhu Mahato as PW-2 to prove his case. The prosecution proved the C.C. Of Judgment dated 20-11-2009 of PCR Case No. 420/2002 as Exhibit-1 and C.C. Of Adoption Deed No. 155 dated 29-06-1990 as Exhibit-2. 8. The petitioners did not produce any witness in the trial court, but filed two documents in their defence which have been marked as exhibits, Exhibit-A, certified copy of deposition of Jagbandhu Goswami recorded on 10-07-2008 in G.R. Case No. 620/2006, T.R. No. 887/2008 and Exhibit-A/a, certified copy of deposition of Mritunjay Mahato recorded on 21-07-2010 in G.R. Case No. 620/2006, T.R. No. 887/2008 to prove bona-fide land dispute between the parties. 9. This court finds that the learned trial court, after considering the evidences on record, including the defence documents has recorded its findings that there is no bona-fide land dispute between the parties and that the Complainant has been able to prove his case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 10. This Court further finds that the learned lower appellate court after considering the materials on record has recorded its findings in Paras 7 and 8 of the appellate judgment. The learned lower appellate court has appreciated the materials on record and also taken into consideration that PW-1 is an eye witness to the occurrence and has fully supported the prosecution case and has also stated that the Complainant had taken the land by Bhugatbandha and had cultivated paddy over it and the land was in possession of the Complainant at the time of the occurrence. The learned appellate court has also given a finding that the documents regarding land of the complainant was not challenged by the petitioners before any competent court of law and rejected the plea of bona-fide land dispute as raised by the petitioners. 11. The learned appellate court has also given a finding that the documents regarding land of the complainant was not challenged by the petitioners before any competent court of law and rejected the plea of bona-fide land dispute as raised by the petitioners. 11. This Court finds that the learned trial court as well as learned lower appellate court, after detailed consideration of the materials on record have rejected the plea of bona-fide land dispute as raised by the petitioners and have convicted the petitioners under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code which are well-reasoned judgments. This Court finds that the learned lower appellate court has granted sufficient relief to the petitioners by modifying the sentence and releasing them on probation bond. There being no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned court below and the sentence of the petitioners having been modified by the learned lower appellate court, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present revision application is hereby dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 14. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘email/FAX’.