Full Judgment
Allsop, J.
1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh. Four persons were fined Rs. 25 each for cutting and removing crops alleged to have been attached on account of arrears of taqavi. The Magistrate found that the attachment had taken place and that the accused persons had removed the crops. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference that the conviction and sentences should be set aside in revision because a there is no evidence at all on the record to prove that the attachment was made.
2. I have examined the statements made by the accused persons and I find that not one of them pretended that no attachment was made. Their defence was that they had not cut or removed the crops. A. Naib Tahsildar was examined and he said that the property had been attached on account of the fact that arrears of taqavi were due from one Kewal Singh. It seems unnecessary for me in revision to go into the question whether technically the provisions of the rules of evidence were fully complied with or not. If the learned Sessions Judge thought that it was doubtful whether the attachment had been made and that an examination of the amin would settle the question, it was for him to examine the man under the provisions of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is an application in revision and not an appeal and the main question which I have to consider is whether substantial justice has been done. If this had been an appeal, the applicants no doubt would have been entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which they wished to raise. As this is not an appeal, the only question is whether this Court should interfere in the interests of justice.
3. I have not the slightest doubt that the attachment was made and that the applicants did remove the crops. That being so, substantial justice has been done and there is no ground for interference.
4. It has been urged that the sentences are too severe, but that is a matter which was especially one for the discretion of the Court below. This reference is rejected. The papers may be returned to the Court below.