JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition to revise an order dated the 15th March 1956, of Shri N.N. Mitra, Magistrate First Class, Cuttack, convicting the Petitioners u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 15/-. each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one week. The case was brought by P. W. 1. on allegation that all the Petitioners committed criminal trespass and damaged his kulthi crop on plots 3505 and 3506 in village puranchandra P.S. Jagatsinghpur, which, according to the complainant (P. W. 1, were in his possession having been recorded as 'Anabadi' in the last settlement. He examined two witness, P. Ws. 2 and 3, to show that he had raised the kulthi crop on those plots and that the Petitioners had trespassed on the same and taken away crop. The defence of Petitioner Dhadi Naik was that the land was all along in his possession, having been settled with him, on lease, by the complainants father over twenty years ago. In support of this plea he produced two leases deeds (Exs. A and B, said to have been signed by the father of the complainant. The complainant admitted the genuineness of the signatures of his father in Exs. A and B, but he was not certain about the circumstances under which the other writings in the two documents came into existence. The learned Magistrate also appears to have believed these two documents as evidencing annual leases in favour of Petitioner Dhadi Naik but he though suit as there was no further evidence of the execution of the written leases in favour of Dhadi Naik, the Petitioners had failed to prove their possession of the disputed plots after 19-14. 2. As this is a criminal case, it was not proper to shift the burden on the accused person to show that they failed to prove' their possession in the date on which the incident was said to have taken place. The complainant has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was in possession of the disputed plots. The leases of the years 1943 and 1944 would raise a presumption that the lands, having been originally cultivated by Dhadi Naik, continued to remain in his possession unless there was clear evidence to show that he was dispossessed by the complainant. 3. The complainant has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was in possession of the disputed plots. The leases of the years 1943 and 1944 would raise a presumption that the lands, having been originally cultivated by Dhadi Naik, continued to remain in his possession unless there was clear evidence to show that he was dispossessed by the complainant. 3. Apart from this, the oral evidence on the question of possession on the side of the complainant is rather weak P. W. 2 is his cousin. P. W.3 was admittedly one of the labourers employed by him to sow the Kulthi crop. Another witness, P. W. 4, was also examined on his side, but the learned Magistrate disbelieved his evidence as worthless. There is also a material discrepancy between the evidence of P. W. and P. W. 5, regarding the boundaries of the disputed plots. Admittedly there is party function in the village and the complainant does not appear to be a resident of the village as he lives in Cuttack where he is employed as a Government servant. 4. Taking all these circumstances into consideration it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the disputed plots were really in the possession of the complainant, so as to sustain the charge u/s 447, Indian Penal Code. I would therefore give the benefit of doubt to the Petitioners and acquit them, of that charge. The fines, paid, should be refunded. Revision Allowed. Final Result : Allowed