JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. For the reasons indicated below the impugned judgment dated 22.8.1994 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Revision No. 6/18 of 1993 is liable to be set aside.
2. The first party in Criminal Misc. Case No. 248/98 of the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate. Sambalpur (in short ‘S.D.M.’) is the petitioner No. 1 in this Criminal Revision and the contesting second party No. 1 the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 6/10 of 1993 (in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge) is the opposite party in this revision.
3. The first party initiated the aforesaid proceeding underSection 145. Cr.P.C, stating that plot No. 436/1257 Ac. 0.11 decimals and plot No. 379/1258 Ac. 1.12 decimals, in total Ac. 1.23 decimals of Khata No. 348/39 in Mouza-Tabadabahal under Sason Police-station in the district of Sambalpur was settled with him as a beneficiary after vesting of the said land with the State Government as the ceiling surplus land of the ceiling surplus land-holder Rabindra Nath Pujhari and since the date of settlement which was accompanied by delivery of possession the first party is in possession of the case land. The second party/opposite party Juhan Munda contested the case by claiming possession over the case land for last 40 (forty) years.
4. At the stage of inquiry under Sub-Section (4) of Section 145, Cr.P.C the first party adduced oral evidence of himself and the ceiling surplus land-holder Rabindra Nath Pujhari relating to settlement, delivery of possession and thereafter possession of land by him (first party) and adduced oral evidence of collection Moharir who proved the rent receipt filed by the first party. First party also filed the patta granted in his favour and the rent receipt in addition to the aforesaid oral evidence in proof of the claim of actual possession. The second party/opposite party only examined himself as the solitary witness in support of his claim of long possession. He did not file any document and did not examine any independent witness in support of his claim for actual possession.
5. Learned S.D.M. on assessment, appreciated and accepted the evidence of first party and declared the possession in his favour vide the judgment dated 22.8.1992. In the revision preferred by the second party learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the aforesaid judgment of the S.D.M. on the ground that the first party having not examined the revenue official who delivered the possession and having not produced the writ of delivery of possession has not been able to prove the actual possession. Accordingly he set aside the order of learned S.D.M.
6. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge though noted the principle of law that in the absence of wrong interpretation of law and misappreciation of facts leading to serious miscarriage of justice it is not permissible for the revisional Court to interfere with the order passed by the Executive Magistrate but he interfered with the judgment of learned S.D.M. on the aforesaid flimsy ground. When the oral evidence of the first party as well as Rabindra Nath Pujhari are quite clear and consistent to corroborate the claim of possession as advanced by the first party as against the insignificant evidence of the second party, learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have insisted for further evidence in proof of actual possession. Apart from that when learned S.D.M. neither misread the evidence on record nor committed illegality while appreciating the evidence learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the factual findings recorded by learned S.D.M. On appreciation of the facts and evidence and the reasonings given by the Courts below, as respect their respective judgments, for the reasons quoted above this Court finds that learned Additional Sessions Judge made incorrect and moneous approach to interfere with the factual finding recorded by learned S.D.M. on the basis of a good reasoned order. For the sake of clarity, it may be stated that between the parties, the evidence of the first party stands in a better and superior footing with due corroboration relating to claim of actual possession. Thus, the judgment of learned Additional Sessions judge in Criminal Revision No. 6/18 of 1993 is set aside, consequentially the judgment of learned S.D.M. is maintained and accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed.