JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - This appeal is filed with leave of court against the acquittal of the Respondents in appeal by Sri D.N. Das, Sessions Judge of Ganjam. They were convicted by the trying Magistrate under Sections 447 and 426 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that the complainant P. W. 5 purchased the survey No. 729 from one Bira Dalai in 1946 under a registered sale-deed and raised a betel garden there and was in enjoyment and possession of it. On 12-12-1953 the complainant alleged that the two accused who are father and son trespassed and uprooted the betel creepers and the Agasti plants which supported the said creepers causing a damage of about Rs. 150/- to the complainant. When questioned it is stated that the Respondents defied him and that later on they left it when the neighbouring tenants prevented their high-handed action, 3. The Respondents pleaded not guilty and denied having committed any trespass on the complainant's land or causing any mischief. They claim that the land was their ancestral property and grew betel and Agasti plants on it, The Magistrate who tried the case held that the Respondents were guilty. But I find in the judgment of the Magistrate there is absolutely no consideration of the question whether the accused-trespassed upon the land and whether they committed the offence of mischief. The only finding which the Magistrate arrived at after a consideration of the evidence was that the complainant succeeded in proving the case. In my opinion it is not sufficient to say so and punish the accused. The trying Magistrate must on a consideration of the evidence come to a conclusion that the offence alleged against the accused was made out in evidence. Trespass by itself Is not criminal. It is criminal only when it is done with the intention to commit an offence or with the intention of causing annoyance etc. Unless there is a finding that the accused persons entered on the land with the intention of cutting the betel leaf creepers or with the intention of causing annoyance to the complainant or that mischief was done there can be no conviction under either 447 or 427 I.P.C. 4. Unless there is a finding that the accused persons entered on the land with the intention of cutting the betel leaf creepers or with the intention of causing annoyance to the complainant or that mischief was done there can be no conviction under either 447 or 427 I.P.C. 4. In the appeal against the conviction and sentence Sri D.N. Das, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam set aside the conviction and sentence on a different ground he came to the conclusion that S. No. 729 which according to the prosecution belonged to the complaint appeared in the diglott as belonging to two persons and therefore, the complainant could not be said to have made out his title. He also held that the accused entered upon the land under a bonafide claim of title. Though the learned Sessions Judge referred to the diglott it is not on the record and is not marked as an exhibit. The diglott referred to is of the year 1950. I am not sure if a diglott is printed in Ganjan District in 1950. But there is the evidence on the side of the complainant that he purchased the land in 1946 by a registered sale-deed. He was paying rent since that time and a patta was also issued in his name. In the face of this evidence I cannot understand how the learned Session Judge came to the conclusion that the land was not in the possession of the complainant. The other point on which the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction is also not satisfactory. The case that they were in possession in their own right, the property being their ancestral property cannot be said to have been made out in view of all the documentary evidence produced by the complainant being in his favour. The learned Sessions Judge in my opinion was also in error in saying that the village Karan was interested in the complainant as he attested the sale-deed of 1946 and also spoke to the possession of land by the complainant. Karanam of a village is best fitted to speak to possession of land. 5. The learned Sessions Judge in my opinion was also in error in saying that the village Karan was interested in the complainant as he attested the sale-deed of 1946 and also spoke to the possession of land by the complainant. Karanam of a village is best fitted to speak to possession of land. 5. Though in my opinion, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is not supported by cogent reasons, I cannot allow this appeal in view of the fact that the trying Magistrate has not recorded any findings that the Respondents are guilty of criminal trespass of mischief. 6. Mr. Rao under these circumstances asked me to remand the case to the trial court with a direction to write a judgment in accordance with law. I do not think the facts in this case deserve a remand to the trial Court. In my opinion the acquittal can be upheld on the ground that the trying Magistrate did not categorically find that the accused was guilty of criminal trespass or mischief. 7. I would therefore, dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed