AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The evidence on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied to support his finding that the Petitioners claim an interest in the land consists merely of the statements of three witnesses who say that the Petitioners demanded kabuliyats from them. But it is admitted that the Petitioners have no property in the land, and that the mother of two Petitioners and the wife of one had interest in it. There is no evidence to prove that the Petitioners were demanding kabuliyats for themselves. The Magistrate should have excluded the record of the riot case [vide In the matter of C.G.D. Betts and Mohomed Ismail Chowdhry 15 W.R. Cr. 6 (1871)]. The result is that the finding that the Perfumers were claiming an interest in the laud cannot be supported. The convictions and sentences under sec. 155 must be and are set aside and the fine, if paid, must be refunded.
The Rule is made absolute.