JUDGMENT 1. - On the basis of a report lodged by the applicant at P S. Lamba Hari Singh on 9-3-75, a case for the offence u/s 447, 379 and 147, IPC was registered against the non-applicant. After completing the investigation, a challan was filed against the non-applicants. The learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Malpura vide his order dated 4-11-77 while acquitting the accused-non-applicants ordered to issue notice to the complainant-applicant u/s 250, Cr.PC, as why compensation should not be awarded to the accused persons. The applicant contested the notice by filing a written reply. The learned magistrate rejected the plea taken by the complainant-applicant and ordered to pay Rs. 150/- to each of the non-applicants. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Magistrate, the applicant preferred a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Tonk, which was rejected on 22-4-81. Hence this miscellaneous application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the record, 3. In the reply to show cause notice it was stated by the applicant that the land in dispute from where the crop is alleged to have been stolen by the accused-non-applicants was in possession of the applicant and during the course of trial no document in this regard was filed in favour of the present applicant, but when the applicant filed his reply u/s 250, Cr.P.C. the documents which were filed before the learned magistrate were not considered. It has been ordered by the learned magistrate while acquitting the accused-non-applicants that the prosecution failed to prove the possession of the property on the disputed land. In the judgement of acquittal, the documents produced by the prosecution were certainly considered by the learned trial court, but the trial court though admitted the entry of khasra girdawar. Old khasra girdawari of St. 2014 to St. 2019 was filed by the complainant before the learned magistrate. It has been observed by the learned magistrate that the complainant failed to prove any entry in his favour from St. 2020 to St. 2029. From a perusal of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, it appears that all the documents in possession of the disputed land were not submitted before the trial court and that was the reason that the trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove possession of the complainant. But in the proceedings which were initiated under section 250, Cr. But in the proceedings which were initiated under section 250, Cr. P.C. the complainant submitted khasra girdawari from St. 2014 to St. 2019 and from St. 2030 to St. 2032, and in the revisional court the order of temporary injunction which was granted in favour of the complainant by the SDM Malapura was also filed and in that order it has been ordered by the SDM that the complainant was in continuous possession of the disputed land from St. 2010 to St. 2032. It has also been observed by the learned SDM that on the orders of the State Government Shikmi entries in khasra giradawari had stopped from St. 2020 to St. 2029. There are entries in favour of the complainant in St. 2019 and then in St. 2030. On the basis of these entries, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the complainant was in continuous possession of the disputed land. It is thus clear that relevant documents were not produced before the trial court in the original case at the stage of trial. Looking to the entries in khasra girdawari from St. 2014 to St. 2019 and St. 2032 to St. 2033 and also the order of temporary injunction passed by the SDM Malpura, it cannot be said that the complainant has made a false and frivolous allegation to this effect that the land in dispute was in his possession. The accused-non-applicants were acquitted on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the possession. There is a difference in proving the possession and having the possession. As accused can be acquitted on the ground that relevant evidence is not forthcoming before the court. If the relevant document exists on the basis of which it can be presumed that someone has a claim, then it cannot be said that the person claiming on the basis of that documents is putting a false case before the court. In the instant case, there were reasonable grounds for making accusation against the accused persons. Under Section 250, Cr.PC. the magistrate is bound to consider the cause which the complainant or the informant may show in his reply which has been filed in response to the notice given u/s 250 (1),, Cr. PC. As observed above, both the courts have not correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of law and could not consider the relevant documents in this respect. the magistrate is bound to consider the cause which the complainant or the informant may show in his reply which has been filed in response to the notice given u/s 250 (1),, Cr. PC. As observed above, both the courts have not correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of law and could not consider the relevant documents in this respect. On the basis of the order a temporary injunction which was passed by the Revenue Court in favour of the complainant, it can be said that this was the best document to prove possession of the applicant. But, unfortunately the same was filed before the trial court. It is thus clear that this is a case where the courts below have completely ignored the documentary evidence wherein actual possession was shown of the complainant. There was a reasonable cause for making the accusation against the accused persons on the basis of khasra girdawari passed by the SDM, granting temporary injunction. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that both the courts below ignored the fundamental principles of law and thus committed an error. 4. Accordingly, this application is accepted and the orders dated 4-11-77 and 22-4-81 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Malpura and the Sessions Judge, Tonk respectively are set aside and the notice | issued against the applicant u/s 250, Cr. PC by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Malpura on 4-11-77 is discharged.Application accepted. *******