B.P. Jha, J. This is an appeal by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') under section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, The respondent no. 1 was prosecuted by the Board in respect of offences under section 67 (1) read with section 58 and section 60 (1) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 1 of 1951) hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It is said that the respondent no. 1 did not submit the budget for the year 1967-68 by the 15th January, 1967 and also the return for the years 1951-52 to 1965-66, to the Board. The Board was of opinion that the respondent no. 1 was the trustee of a public trust known as "Radhey Krishna Thakurbari" at Bhabhua. On these facts, the trial court held that the Thakurbari in question is a private trust and not a public trust. A person can be prosecuted under section 67 of the Act, provided he is a "trustee" of a public trust. If he is not trustee of a public trust, he cannot be prosecuted under section 67 (1) of the Act. In this connection a reference was made to the definition of the "Religious Trust "under section 2(L) of the Act, which reads as follows : Religious trust means any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognised by Hindu Law to be religious, pious or charitable, but shall not include a trust created according to the Sikh religion or purely for the benefit or the Sikh community and private endowment created for the worship of a family idol in which the public ale not interested." In this definition a private endowment created for the worship of a family idol in which the public are not interested is not included as a religious trust. In other words, a private trust is not included within the purview of the provisions of this Act. The trial court in its judgment held that the Thakurbari in question is a private trust and not a public trust. In this connection a reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and another V. Nalini Choudhari and others. The trial court in its judgment held that the Thakurbari in question is a private trust and not a public trust. In this connection a reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and another V. Nalini Choudhari and others. In that case it has been held that in a prosecution under section 67 of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove that (i) there is a religious trust, and (2) the person prosecuted is a trustee of the religious trust. It is, therefore, clear that the Criminal Court will have to decide both these questions in a prosecution under section 67 (1) of the Act. If the Criminal Court comes to the conclusion that the trust is a private trust then the accused will be entitled to acquittal in respect of the offence charged. 2. In the present case on the basis of the materials on the record the trial court was of opinion that the Thakurbari in question is a private trust, In this connection a reference was made to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 P.W. 1 is an employee in the Board and as such he is incompetent to say as to whether the Trust is a private trust or a public trust. The trial court rejected the testimony of P.W.1 on this ground. I am in agreement with the view of the trial court. The evidence of P.W. 2 disclosed that the public used to visit the temple of the respondent no. 1 for worshipping the deity of Radha Krishna. In this connection a reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust V. Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das. In that case it has been held as follows:- "Trust, the mere fact of the public having been freely admitted to the temple cannot mean that courts should readily infer there from dedication to the public. The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on the circumstances which give strength to the inference that the user was as of right. No such evidence of any reliable kind was available to the appellant-Board in the instant case". The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on the circumstances which give strength to the inference that the user was as of right. No such evidence of any reliable kind was available to the appellant-Board in the instant case". In my opinion the mere fact that the public are allowed to enter into the premises of the temple cannot mean that the trust is a public trust unless it is proved that the public enter into the temple as a matter of right. There is no such reliable evidence to this effect. The evidence of P.W. 2 is not trustworthy. In his cross-examination when he (P.W.2) was asked to tell the name of his father, he replied that he did not remember the name of his father. He has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that he stated the name of his father in examination in-chief in answering to the question of the court. In this connection reference was made to the evidence of Ram Swarup Tripati (P.W.1) who stated that the temple in question was established by Chaman Lal. He also stated that the trust in question is a private trust. It appears from his evidence that he worships the deity and recites "Katha" in which only the respondent no.1 is family participate. The evidence of D.W. is reliable and there is no reliable evidence on the record to discred it the testimony of D.W. 1. In the present case, the admitted position is that one Chaman Lal established the idol of Radha Krishna at Bhabua. In this connection a reference was made to the evidence of P.W. 2 who stated that there is a registered document in respect of the creation of the trust. This deed was not produced before the court. It is for this reason that the trial court is of opinion that it is difficult to state the intention of the dedicator in the absence of production of any deed of dedication. On the other hand, the respondent examined D.W. 1 who is Pujari of the Thakurbari. In his evidence he stated that it is a private trust of the respondent no.1. The trial court has accepted the testimony of D.W. 1 and rejected the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. On the other hand, the respondent examined D.W. 1 who is Pujari of the Thakurbari. In his evidence he stated that it is a private trust of the respondent no.1. The trial court has accepted the testimony of D.W. 1 and rejected the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The evidence of P.W. 3 has been rejected on the ground that he is an incompetent witness because he never visited the Thakurbari in question. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on some documentary evidence mentioned in paragraph 8 of the judgment-Ext. 6 series are entrees in the assessment register maintained in Bhabua Municipality. Ext. 6 shows that holding no. 241 was recorded in the name of assessee Chaman Lal. This entry itself suggests that the intention of Chaman Lal was to create a private trust. Ext. 6 describes respondent no. 1 as a tenant of holding no. 325 belonging to Thakurbari of Chaman Lal. Ext. 6/3 shows that Mandir is the owner of holding nos. 227 and 227/1. None of these exhibits suggest that the temple is a public trust. Learned counsel for the appellant laid great stress on Ext. 5. It is an order by which the authority directed the respondent no. 1 to receive the compensation as shabait of Radha Krishnaji Trust. In paragraph 4 of that document (Ext. 5) it is mentioned that it is a genuine trust and it has been dedicated exclusively to religious and charitable purpose. On the basis of this statement of fact learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is a religious trust within the provisions of the Act. I am afraid to accept this contention" The prosecution cannot rely upon any finding of any revenue officer made under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Criminal court will have to come to its own conclusion during the trial under the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, as to whether the Trust in question is a private trust or a public trust (see The President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and another V. Nalini Chaudhari and others.) The Magistrate is not bound by the finding of the revenue authorities. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion during the trial in a prosecution under section 67 (1) of the Act, that it is a private trust, the matter is final between the parties unless the finding is set aside in revision or in appeal by the High Court. 4. In the present case the deed of dedication was not produced by the prosecution as a result of which the Magistrate is of opinion that it is difficult for him to know the intention of the dedicator. In my opinion, he is correct. The intention of the dedicator can be known by the deed of dedication. The intention can also be proved by oral evidence on the record which is lacking in this case. I can not accept the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. I accept the testimony of D.W. 1 and I hold that it is a private trust. I also hold that Ext. 6 series and other documents on the record suggest that it is a private trust. 5. In the result. I uphold the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.