K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. T for short) has been assailed in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is stated in brief: The disputed land consists of two Doliest locally known as Bada Dolit and Chaka Doli with seed capacity of year 1968, Pira Baiga, widow of Dhoba Baiga alias Raut sold away the same in favour of Lokanath Gahir (P. W. 7) by a registered sale-deed (Ext. 1 ). Lokanath Gahir sold away the selfsame land in favour of Raseswari, wife of the appellant by a registered sale deed executed on 3-1-76 (Ext. 2 ). It was alleged that the appellant came into possession of the disputed land and raised paddy crops thereon. The respondent having no manner of right or possession, forcibly reaped away the standing paddy crops from the disputed land on 18-11-76 causing a loss of Rs. 1625/- to the appellant who reported the incident at the Bhatli Police Station, but as no action was taken, he filed the complaint petition on 27-1-77. ( 3 ) THE plea of the respondent was that he was the adopted son of Dhoba Baiga alias Raut. After the death of his adoptive father, his adoptive mother Pira Baiga acknowledged the adoption by executing a deed of acknowledgement (Ext. A) dated 18-2-47. He was jointly recorded as an occupancy Rayat in the record of-rights (Ext. B) published in the year 1977 in respect of the lands left by his adoptive father. He was, therefore, the rightful owner of the disputed land. In short, he asserted bona fide claim of right as his defence. ( 4 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the respondents plea and accepted the prosecution case. He convicted the respondent under Section 379 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs 100/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days more. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the respondents plea of bona fide claim and right in respect of the disputed land and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the respondents plea of bona fide claim and right in respect of the disputed land and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) THE only point that came up for consideration during hearing of this appeal was whether the respondent's plea of bona fide claim of right, in the facts and circumstances of this case, should be accepted or not. If it should be accepted, the appeal must fail. If, on the other hand, such a plea is without substance, the appeal must succeed. ( 6 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of acquittal. The settled position of law in this regard is that in a case in which two views are possible, it is not open to the High Court to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Court. The order of acquittal of the accused reinforces his innocence and so even if it is possible on the facts on record to take a different view, the order of acquittal is not available to be reversed (see Babu and others v. State of U. P.)1 ( 7 ) THE parties and some of the witnesses, in this case are very close relations. Raseswari, wife of the appellant who was the complainant before the trial court is the daughter of Lokanath Gahir (P. W. 7) who had purchased the disputed land from Pira Baiga by Ext. 1 and sold the same some years later in favour of his daughter by Ext. 2. Lokanath Gahir and the respondent are natural brothers and Pira Baiga is their fathers sister. Lokanath Gahir was adopted by One Chandra Sekhar whereas, the respondent claimed to have been adopted by the husband of Pira Baiga. Ext. A was executed by Pira Baiga in favour of the respondent on 18-2-1947. It is a document 30 years old and produced from proper custody. Therefore, it shall be presumed under section 90 of the Evidence Act that the signature and every other part of such document are genuine. In the settlement record-of-rights published in the year 1977 (Ext. B) Priyabati Raut, wife of Dhoba Raut who is none else than Pira Baiga and the respondent were jointly recorded in respect of the disputed land. Therefore, it shall be presumed under section 90 of the Evidence Act that the signature and every other part of such document are genuine. In the settlement record-of-rights published in the year 1977 (Ext. B) Priyabati Raut, wife of Dhoba Raut who is none else than Pira Baiga and the respondent were jointly recorded in respect of the disputed land. The presumption arising out of the record-of-rights is that Pira Baiga and the respondent were in possession of the disputed and other lands recorded therein. In a case reported in Suvvari Sanyasi Appurao and another v. Boddepali Lakshminarayana and another2, Hidayatullah, J. (as his Lordship then was) spoke for the Court and held: It is settled law that where a bona fid claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance or colour of a legal right. In 2 East P. C. P. 659, the law was stated a long time ago thus; If there be in the prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if it be brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal. TI And according to 1 Hale P. C. 509, the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly. The law thus stated by East and Hale has not been altered in modern times. There are numerous cases in which Courts in India have recognised a bona fide claim of right as a defence to the charge of theft. ( 8 ) IN consideration of the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent in support of his defence of bona fide claim of right in respect of the disputed land and the settled position of law, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge was unreasonable. If that be so, this Court cannot legally interfere with the impugned order of acquittal. ( 9 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the, learned Sessions Judge is affirmed. Appeal dismissed. .