IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT JALALUDDIN VS. MANZOOR & 12 ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 85 OF 2007 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 1, 2006 of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bonli, (Distt. Sawai Madhopur) in Criminal case No. 154 of 1998 whereby accused respondents were acquitted of the offence under sections 147, 447 and 379 IPC. Date of Order : January 15, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. A.N.Khan, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Hasan, for the non-petitioners. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Jalaluddin, against the order dated March 1, 2006 of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bonli, (Distt. Sawai Madhopur) in Criminal case No. 154 of 1998 whereby accused respondents were acquitted of the offence under sections 147, 447 and 379 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on October 15, 1990 petitioner filed a complaint to the effect that he had cultivated crop in Khasra Nos. 160, 191, 316, 319, 312 and 357 with his partner Daud Khan and Kasam. In Khasra No. 126/1 Nasir and Shaukat Ali cultivated the crop. In the morning of October 14, 1990 his partner Daud and Kasam went to Khasra No. 191, the accused respondents armed with lathi, gandasi and other weapons entered in the field and when Daud and Kasam asked them not to do so, the accused persons threatened and started harvesting the crop. When petitioner received information from Daud he reached field of Khasra No. 191, the accused respondents were cutting Bajra crop. The petitioner asked them not to do he was also given threatening. The petitioner submitted that on March 15, 1979 possession of the land in question given to him after a decree in his fvour. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Malanrnadungar District Sawaimadhopur for investigation as the offence under sections 447 and 379 are cognizable offence. Police registered FIR No. 134 of 1990 and after investigati8on submitted final report. The petitioner submitted protest petition and enquiry under Chapter XV was conducted and on 5.8.98 cognizance for the offence under sections 147, 447 and 379 IPC was taken. The trial court framed charges under sections 147, 447, and 379 IPC, accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded and statement of accused were also recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they alleged that since their ancestors time they are in possession and had cultivated the land. In defence three witnesses were examined. The trial court heard arguments and acquitted the accused respondents vide its order dated March 1, 2006. Aggrieved against the order dated March 1, 2006, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for offence under Sections 147, 447 and 379 IPC. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offences charged against them. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/