1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioners were convicted under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprison--ment for one month, each. The petitioners' appeal against their conviction and sentences was dismissed. A revisional application moved in the High Court of East Pakistan by the petitioners was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that Court. The petitioners now seek special leave against the order of the High Court dismissing that criminal revision.
2. The allegation against the petitioners was that they trespassed into the land of the complainant Putul Rani Paul on the 14th July 1967, and reaped away half-ripe paddy grown in that land by the complainant. The petitioners pleaded innocence 'and took the defence that the land was in possession of one Abul Faiz and that it was he who had cut and taken away the paddy. The prosecu--tion examined six witnesses including the complainant. They were all eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Their evidence was believed by both the trying Magistrate and the appellate Court.
3. As this concurrent finding was based on evidence, the learned Judge of the High Court was right in refusing to interfere in revision.
4. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.