JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 18-1-1994, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, by which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondent. 2. Accused Ram Karan was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, for the offences under Sections 447 and 427, IPC. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW 1 Shanti Lal, PW 2 Jassa Ram, PW 3 Bhola Ram, PW 4 Dhanna Ram, PW 5 Sohan Lal and PW 6 Manak Lal and got exhibited certain documents. The accused did not produce any evidence in his defence. The learned Magistrate, after trial, acquitted the accused-respondent on the ground that the documents relating to the possession of the well have not been produced, which raises a suspicion. Further, witness Guinan Singh has not been produced in evidence, in whose presence complainant Shanti Lal set the cart for taking the motor. The witnesses, produced by the prosecution, are not reliable and the Investigating Officer has not been produced. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment passed by the trial Court. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence, produced by the prosecution, in the right perspective and has rightly acquitted the accused. The non-production of the Investigating Officer is a serious infirmity which goes to the root of the prosecution case. Certain material witnesses have not been produced and when the possession over the land in question has not been proved then the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, does not require any interference. 4. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition rejected. *******