JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - The applicants were convicted by the trial court u/s 447 I.P.C. and were sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. They filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun. Their appeal was dismissed and their conviction was maintained. They have now filed the present revision. 2. The dispute in this case relates to certain plots Theekkoo, Katkoo and Jhangutia, who were the complainants, alleged that they had been in possession of these plots and had sown maize, paddy and kangni crops in them and that on the 27th April, 1953 the applicants without any right cut the above crops to the extent of 25 maunds of paddy, 1 maund of kangni and 10 seers of maize. The complaint was filed on the 27th April, 1953 that is on the same day the crop was said to have been cut by the accused. 3. The accused denied the possession of the complainants. They alleged that had been in possession of the disputed plots since a long time and that the crop in dispute had been raised by them and that no offence u/s 447, I.P.C. was made out. 4. The applicants produced copies of several judgments in which their possession over the disputed plots had been upheld by the revenue court. They also filed extracts from the village papers in which their names were entered over these plo:ts. Besides the above evidence they also examined some witnesses. The complianants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their possession. They also examined some witnesses in order to prove their possession over the disputed plots. The lower courts brushed aside the judgments of the revenue court on the ground that they related to the period prior to 27th April, 1953 and were, therefore, not sufficient to prove the possession of the accused on the date in question. The revenue papers in which the names of the accused were entered over the plots in dispute was discarded on the ground that the person who had made the entries therein was not examined as a witness. It was also held that though the entries were in the name of the accused that fact by itself did not prove that the accused were in actual possession of the plots. It was also held that though the entries were in the name of the accused that fact by itself did not prove that the accused were in actual possession of the plots. Relying on the evidence of two of the prosecution witnesses who were considered independent the lower courts found in favour of the complainants that they were in possession of the disputed plots. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and also for the State and I am of opinion that the judgments of the courts below are against the evidence on the record and are perverse. No satisfactory reason has been assigned by the lower courts to discard the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the applicants. The judgments which have been filed in this case are dated 17th December, 1952, 28th December, 1952, 29th December, 1952, 30th December, 1952 and 17th Jan. 1953. It appears from a perusal of these judgments that there was a dispute between the parties about the possession of the disputed plots; that the qanungo had made an entry in favour of the complainant and that this was objected to by the accused and the question was finally decided in all these judgments in favour of the accused. The last judgment is dated 17th January, 1953, about 3 months before the date of the alleged occurrence. When the accused were found in possession of the disputed plots in January, ly53 the probability is that they were in possession on the disputed date as there is no satisfactory explanation as to how the accused were dispossessed after January, 1953. 6. There is one curious feature in this case. According to the complainants the accused had removed 25 maunds of paddy, 1 maund of kangni and 10 seers of mainze belonging to the complainants but still no charge u/s 3/9 was made against the accused. This fact itself would indicate that the complaint was filed u/s 447 I.P.C. simply in order to create proof of possession. 7. Section 441 I.P.C. which defines 'criminal trespass' runs as follows: Section 441. This fact itself would indicate that the complaint was filed u/s 447 I.P.C. simply in order to create proof of possession. 7. Section 441 I.P.C. which defines 'criminal trespass' runs as follows: Section 441. Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass. 8. I have already pointed out above that there was litigation between the parties in respect of the disputed plots as both the parties were claiming possession over them and that this litigation was decided in favour of the accused. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the accused had gone to the plots in dispute with some dishonest intention or with the intention of committing any offence. In my opinion the charge u/s 447 I.P.C. has not been made out against the applicants. 9. This revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicants u/s 447 I.P.C. are set aside.