JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the order dated 6.6.1992, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Revision No. 2/91 reversing the order dated 29.12.1990, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Dharamjaigarh, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3 of 1989. According to the applicant, he has purchased the disputed land in the year 1982 and is in possession since then of Khasra Nos. 753/2 and 750/3 areas 0.2 and 0.202 Hectares. For agricultural purpose, he prepared the land in the year 1989 and ploughed the field for rice crops but the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 had destroyed all the crops and were trying forcefully to dispossess him. The applicant, therefore, moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate had seized the land and crops and proceeded further. The order was passed in favour of the applicant but the revisional Court has reversed the same. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, the applicant has filed this revision petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in appreciating the evidence, which is not permissible under section 397, Cr.P.C.. The revisional Court also erred in facts as well as in law in reversing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The revisional Court ought not have entered into the question of title but should have looked into the fact of possession only. The submissions of the learned counsel for the non-applicants are that they are bonafide and registered purchasers of the lands in suit through a registered sale-deed. The actual physical possession was handed over to them. Their names have also been mutated after due publication and the order passed by the revisional Court relying on documentary evidence as against the oral evidence cannot be said to an error of law or the facts on record. No jurisdictional error has been committed. No further interference is called for in this revision filed by the applicant. In this case, though the applicant claims to be the purchaser of the suit land in the year 1982 for Rs. 2,400/-, no written document to this effect has been filed by him. Even the khasra entries do not show his name. The predecessor in title was Niranjan, from whom both the parties claim to have purchased the suit land. In this case, though the applicant claims to be the purchaser of the suit land in the year 1982 for Rs. 2,400/-, no written document to this effect has been filed by him. Even the khasra entries do not show his name. The predecessor in title was Niranjan, from whom both the parties claim to have purchased the suit land. The khasra entries filed by the applicant himself shows the name of Niranjan as Bhumiswami and Balbhadra as the person in possession. Balbhadra is none else but the non-applicant No. 1. The non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 are brothers. Non-applicant No.4 Prem Singh is their father and the Non-applicant No.5 Jalindhar is the son of the non-applicant No.1 Bal Badra. The lands are said to have been purchased by him on 21.9.1988 by a registered sale-deed. Thereafter, the name of Balbhadra was mutated by order dated 4.11.1988. Though Niranjan has not been examined, in this case, the applicant cannot take its benefit because the burden lay on him also to prove that he has purchased the lands in dispute from Niranjan. He should have produced his as a witness but he failed to do so. As against the documentary evidence, the oral evidence should not have been relied upon by the trial Magistrate. It cannot be said that the revisional Court has materially erred in relying on the same or has committed any illegality. The fact of possession cannot be decided on oral evidence as against the documentary evidence. The khasra entries are presumed to be correct unless otherwise proved by the applicant. In view of this, no interference in the order passed by the revisional Court is called for. The revisional is accordingly dismissed.