JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. The first party in Crl. Misc. Case No. 238 of 1990 of the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sambalpur (in short, ‘SDM’) is the petitioner No. 1 besides one of the second party members as petitioner No. 2. The other two second party members are the opposite party in this criminal revision.
2. The subject-matter of dispute is plot No. 1274 of Khata No. 348/54 measuring an area of Ac. 0.78 decimals in village Tabadabahal under Sason Police Station in the district of Sambalpur. The aforesaid Crl. Misc. Case was initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in the Court of SDM at the instance of the first party. He laid claim over the subject-matter of dispute as a beneficiary being settled with that land after the same was found to be ceiling surplus land of the erstwhile land holder Rabindranath Pujhari and after its vesting with the State. He alleged that the second party members having no semblance of right, title and possession created disturbance in his peaceful possession and therefore he sought for the protection under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The second party No. 1/opposite party No. 1 filed written statement and claimed right and possession over the case land on the ground of long possession.
3. During enquiry the first party adduced oral evidence of himself. Rabindranath Pujhari and the collection Moharir who granted rent receipts in his favour. He also relied upon the patta granted by the Tahsildar and the rent receipts, as aforesaid. The second party/opposite party No. 1 adduced his oral evidence only in support of the claim that he is in possession of the case land since long.
4. On assessment of the said evidence learned SDM found the evidence of first party to be reliable and credible and accordingly accepted the same and declared the possession in his favour vide his judgment and order dated 29.8.1992. Learned SDM did not find the evidence of second party to be reliable. As against that order the second party members preferred a criminal revision in the Court of Session at Sambalpur. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur vide the impugned judgment dated 22.8.1994 in Cr. Revision No. 4/12 of 1993 held that since the first party did not examine the officer who delivered possession of the case land and since he did not produce and prove the writ of delivery of possession hence the plea of possession on the basis of the patta granted by the Tahsildar is not acceptable. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the learned SDM. It is wrong to note that while passing the aforesaid judgment learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not record a finding as to who was in possession of the case land on the date of preliminary order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the first party petitioner argued that learned Addl. Sessions Judge illegally interfered with the finding on the fact recorded by the SDM when such findings of learned SDM does not suffer from illegality or perversity. He further argued that evidence adduced by the first party has proved the factum of possession in his favour and as against that evidence adduced by the 2nd party is neither reliable nor acceptable in the absence of any corroborative evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the second party opposite party argued that in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. the Court does not consider the factum of ‘deemed possession’ but it considers the factum of ‘actual possession’. In this case learned SDM having considered the deemed possession of the first party to declare the possession in his favour learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly interfered with factual finding I to set aside that judgment.
7. It is too well settled a principle of law that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction can re-assess the evidence if the factual finding recorded by the original/trial Court is based on incorrect assessment of evidence, misreading the evidence, wrong interpretation of evidence or factual presumption drawn on surmises. It is also established principal of law that if the factual finding recorded by the trial Court is found to be based on assessment of evidence on record and a reasonable one then the revisional Court shall not interfere with such factual finding recorded by the trial Court by imposing another view, even if such view on reading of evidence, may be found to be a reasonable one. Court conferred with the power of revision in Chapter XXX of the Cr.P.C should adhere to the aforesaid principles because the sine qua non for exercising revisional jurisdiction is to “examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court.”
8. In the present case, the factual finding recorded by learned SDM clearly shows the undisputed position that before vesting of the land with the Government as ceiling surplus land Rabindranath Pujhari was the owner of that land. It also emerges from the aforesaid evidence that Rabindranath Pujhari faced a ceiling proceeding. There is no whisper from the side of the second party that he appeared before the Tahsildar in the ceiling proceeding and claimed for possession over the case land and prayed to exclude the same from the ceiling proceeding or to note his possession with respect to the disputed case land and to keep it within the land of the land holder. The second party also did not produce a scrap of paper in support of the fact that he is in long possession of the case land. On the other hand, the first party not only produced the patta showing settlement of the land in his name so also rent receipts in proof of his claim of actual possession. He also examined the ceiling surplus land holder to corroborate to his evidence that delivery of possession of the case land was. made in his (first party’s) favour and that evidence remained unchallenged. When the evidence stands in that footing as it appears no further evidence was necessary for the learned SDM to declare the possession in favour of the first party. It is not known why learned Addl. Sessions Judge intended to search for further corroboration when the aforesaid evidence adduced by the first party has remained unshaken. Thus, it is seen that though the factual finding of learned SDM relating to actual possession was based on proper assessment of evidence learned Addl. Sessions Judge by overstepping from the revisional jurisdiction unreasonably interfered with the finding on fact recorded by the SDM.
9. For the aforesaid reason the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision No. 4/12 of 1993 is set aside and consequently the order of the learned SDM in Crl. Misc. Case No. 238 of 1990 is maintained
10. The crl. revision is allowed accordingly.