JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi dated 26-12-1986 in criminal case No. 310-1/85. By the impugned judgment, the learned Court below found the accused-respondent Shankar Dass, owner of Shankar Tea Stall, Pandoh Bazar, District Mandi, not guilty under section 12 (I) of the H. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1968. 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of the present appeal are that a complaint petition was filed to the learned trial Court under the aforesaid section on the allegation that on Kullu-Manali road, National Highway No. 21, which has been notified as a scheduled road by the Government, it was found on inspection by Shri K. K. Thakur, Junior Engineer, on 18-6-1985 that the accused was constructing a Khokha within the controlled width of the above road. Notice under the Act was duly served on the accused-respondent and as he did not comply with it, the complaint petition was filed. 3. The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty to the above charge and trial proceeded. To prove the story, the prosecution examined two witnesses and also exhibited documents including maps. Statement of the accused under section 313, Cr. P. C. was recorded and in his statement the accused denied the allegation and took the plea that the disputed Khokha was an old one having been constructed in the year 1950. The accused examined one Kanshi Ram as defence witness, DW 1. 4. Heard Mr. R. M. Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State appellant and Shri Vishal Panwar for the accused-respondent. 5. The self-imposed restriction on the court in deciding an appeal against acquittal is well settled. Law has been laid down by the various High Courts as well as the apex Court. In an appeal against acquittal, normally the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the judgment of the trial Court inasmuch as the trial Court has the advantage of hearing and seeing the demeanour of the witnesses It is also settled law that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused should be accepted. (See AIR 1961 SC 715 ; AIR 1974 SC 753 ; AIR 1976 SC 2499 and AIR 1987 SC 1083 and 1991 (L) SCC 1667). 6. (See AIR 1961 SC 715 ; AIR 1974 SC 753 ; AIR 1976 SC 2499 and AIR 1987 SC 1083 and 1991 (L) SCC 1667). 6. Coming to the case in hand, this court has gone into the record as well as the impugned judgment. It appears that the learned trial Court also for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record, made a local inspection. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of acquittal is perverse or not based on evidence. Therefore, this court is reluctant to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 7. Mr R M. Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General, has rightly pointed out that encroachment on a National Highway has to be removed in the public interest. According to the learned Counsel, apart from criminal prosecution, the encroachment can be removed by following the provisions of law. However, learned Assistant Advocate General, states that if the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this case remained, it may prejudice the authority in taking appropriate action. In my opinion, the finding recorded in the present criminal proceedings cannot be a bar for the appropriate authority, if so advised, to take action in accordance with law. If such a proceeding is initiated, the finding recorded in this criminal case shall not be binding on the parties and the separate proceedings have to be decided on the basis of merit and in accordance with law. 8. Subject to above observations and findings, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.