THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl. R.C.No. 23 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 2.11.2004 in C.C.No.86 of 2003 on the file of court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout, Kadapa District whereby and whereunder the trial court held that the complainant had utterly failed to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 420,447 and 468 IPC and acquitted them of said charges by extending benefit of doubt. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had assigned land to an extent of Ac.1.73 cents in favour of the Complainant- Siddamma and five others covered by Survey Nos.374 and 375 of Gujjalavaripalli village of Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District. The complainant and others cultivated their respective lands by planting Lemon plants among other plants. That A1 and A2 with intention of knocking away the said land of the complainant, forcibly entered the said land and dug a bore well and that the complainant Siddamma reported the matter to Mandal Revenue Officer, who in turn addressed the Police to extend protection to her, but in vain. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file O.S.No.82 of 2002 against A.1; that both sides filed the documents and that both sides allege forgeries. However, the said suit was withdrawn later and dismissed as not pressed. 3. That on the advice of the revenue official, the complainant Siddamma filed a private complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddhout against A1 and A2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that A1 being the village president and A2 being his brother, highhandedly planted lemon plants in her assigned land of Ac.1- 73 cents. The complainant at the time of filing the suit sought temporary injunction; that after due enquiry the same was not granted by the court. Therefore, she approached this court by filing W.P.No.6109 of 2003. It is seems that this court while hearing the said writ petition observed that “as petitioners application in I.A.315 of 2002 in O.S.No.82 of 2002, was already dismissed on 3.12.2002 by court of Junior Civil Jude, Sidhout, nothing can be said regarding possession. However, as third respondent has already addressed the fourth respondent appropriate action may be taken to protect the land which was assigned to the petitioners.” It seems with the said observation writ petition No.6109 of 2009 was disposed of. 4. That the accused also moved writ petition No.17551 of 2003 before this court against the revenue authorities, Atlur Police and also the complainant Siddamma wherein this court observed “the interlocutory application for injunction filed by the 5th respondent and others was dismissed. Presumably it shows that the petitioners are in possession and they cannot be evicted forcibly even though they do not have any order in the civil court”. It appears that the said writ petition inter alia was disposed of with the said observation. That being so, the statement made by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was not in possession of land and that the Government, in fact, was paramount owner does not appear to be so since the complainant herself claimed to be in possession and alleged highhanded action of A1 and A2 in relation to her said property. 5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents-A1 and A2 that though forgery was alleged against them, the documents were not sent to hand writing expert. Therefore, the other side has not discharged their burden. 6. Since A1 and A2 appear to be in possession of the D.K.T. Patta land and as per the orders of this court in the above writ petitions, the complainant’s possession was nagatived, giving a finding as to the offence under Section 447 IPC did not arise so also under Sections 447, and 468 IPC since the alleged forged documents were not referred to hand writing expert. 7 In the circumstances, the impugned order of the trial court does not appear to be erroneous, irregular or misconceived, and as such the same does not warrant interference in any manner from this revisional court. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 15-12-2009 Stp