JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - This is an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 7.7.86 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandapara, in I.C.C. No. 25/81. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant Lingaraj Rath, is the authorised agent of his brothers, namely, Prafulla Chandra Rath, Sankarsan Rath and Ramesh Chandra Rath of village Khandapara. The complaint was lodged by him against the accused persons on the allegation that they had obstructed him in the matter of obtaining delivery of possession of the case land. It is the came of the prosecution that the accused persons are tenants under his brothers. They having defaulted in payment of rent, the landlords brought a proceeding for eviction of the accused persons from the case land and obtained an order in their favour. The Revenue Officer passed an order of eviction against the accused persons. As against the order of Revenue Officer, the accused persons preferred appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Puri but became unsuccessful. After the disposal of the appeal, the Revenue Officer of Khandapara initiated execution proceeding, for eviction of tenant accused persons for non-compliance of the direction of the appellate Courts. The Revenue Officer issued notice to the accused persons to show-cause as to why they will not be evicted from the land. The accused persons did not show cause and as such on 20th March, 1980, the Revenue Officer issued cease cultivation notice to the tenants with effect from 1st April, 1980. The Revenue Inspector was also directed by the Revenue Officer to deliver possession of the case land on 1st April, 1980 to the landlord in presence of two persons and submit his report. Pursuant to the order of the Revenue Officer dated 20th March, 1980, Revenue Inspector, Banamalipur gave notice to both the parties to remain present on 1st April, 1980 for the purpose of delivery of possession. The present complainant along with Gangadhar Das and Budhi Mahara, Drummer went to village Balianuagaon on 1st April, 1980 at about 8.30 a.m. By the time the complainant reached near the spot the accused persons along with some other persons variously armed, raised hullah and held out threat to the complainant not to take possession of the case land. The present complainant along with Gangadhar Das and Budhi Mahara, Drummer went to village Balianuagaon on 1st April, 1980 at about 8.30 a.m. By the time the complainant reached near the spot the accused persons along with some other persons variously armed, raised hullah and held out threat to the complainant not to take possession of the case land. When the Revenue Inspector with three assistants reached the spot at about 10.30 a.m. the accused persons protested and obstructed the Revenue Inspector by raising hullah. In consequence thereof the Revenue Inspector could not give delivery of possession to the complainant and all of them returned. According to the complainant, the place of occurrence is on the embankment of a pond locally known as 'Jari' pond. 3. The Revenue Inspector reported the above incident to the Revenue Officer on the day of incident detailing the grounds for which he could not effect delivery of possession of the case land to the complainant. On 5th of April, 1980, the complaint had also filed a petition before the Revenue Officer for taking appropriate action against the accused persons under Section 63 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and to give delivery of possession of the land in question in presence of police. Therefore, the Revenue Officer heard the matter and passed an order on 21.4.1980 asking the complainant to seek redress of his grievances in appropriate Court of law. Thereafter, the complainant filed another petition on 30th June, 1980 with a prayer to recall his order dated 21st April, 1980. It is alleged that the Revenue Officer passed no order on this petition and so the complainant was compelled to file this complaint petition before the Magistrate for appropriate action on 31st March, 1981. Accordingly, the present case started. The charge under Sections 148/341/353/ 506/34 I.P.C. had been framed against the accused persons. Subsequently, on prayer of the learned counsel for the complainant, charge under Section 68 of the O.L.R. Act was added and the accused persons faced trial before the learned Magistrate. 4. The accused persons pleaded innocence. 5. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned Magistrate was pleased to return a verdict of not guilty and consequently acquitted the accused persons of the charge framed against them. 6. 4. The accused persons pleaded innocence. 5. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned Magistrate was pleased to return a verdict of not guilty and consequently acquitted the accused persons of the charge framed against them. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate, the complaint has filed this appeal as an authorised agent of his brothers. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant, argues that the judgment is contrary to law and against the weight of evidence. None appears on behalf of the respondents when the matter was called for hearing. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the accused persons were the Bhag tenants under the brothers of the complainant. It is also not disputed that the tenants having defaulted in payment of rent to landlords proceeding under the O.L.R. Act had been initiated an order of eviction was passed against the accused persons. The present complaint has been filed by Sri Lingaraj Rath on behalf of his brothers who were the landlords of the accused persons. It has been stated that he is the authorised agent of his brothers, viz, the landlords but not a single paper has been filed show that he was authorised to lodge a complaint on behalf of his brothers. According to the prosecution, the incident happened on 1.4.1980 when he had gone to the locality to take delivery of possession of the case land with the help of the Revenue Inspector. It has been alleged that the accused persons along with other 30/40 other people have obstructed the Revenue Inspector and his men from effecting delivery of possession to the complainant on 1.4.1980. The present complaint has been filed on 31st March, 1981, i.e. about a year after the alleged date of incident. The complainant (P.W.1) has however, offered an explanation for this long delay in lodging the complaint with the Magistrate. It has been stated that on 21st April, 1980, the Revenue Officer on being moved asked the complainant to take shelter in a Court of law to seek redress of his grievances. It has also been stated that on 30th June, 1980, the complainant filed another petition before the Revenue Officer with the prayer to recall the order passed by him earlier on 21st April, 1980. It has also been stated that on 30th June, 1980, the complainant filed another petition before the Revenue Officer with the prayer to recall the order passed by him earlier on 21st April, 1980. The complainant waited but the Revenue Officer having not passed any order on this petition dated 30th June, 1980, he has been compelled to file this complaint petition with the Magistrate. Even, if, it is accepted that the complainant presented a petition on 30th June, 1980, it is difficult to believe that he will wait till 31st March, 1981 to lodge a complaint with the Magistrate. The provisions of law, namely, Section 68 of the O.L.R. Act are quite clear. It is not clear that in face of clear provisions of law the complainant approached the Revenue Officer on 30th of June, 1980 for reconsideration of his earlier order dated 21st April, 1980 and then waited for about 8 months, to finally file this complaint petition before the I Magistrate on 31st March, 1981. Learned Magistrate observed that the explanation offered by the complainant for delay in filing the complaint petition is far from satisfactory. I find no reason to hold otherwise. 9. It has been alleged that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 1st April, 1980, the Revenue Inspector had gone to the village to deliver possession of the case land to the complainant. But he was prevented from doing so by the accused persons and their associates. It has been stated by the complainant (P.W.1) that the Revenue Inspector had gone to the village to serve notice upon the accused persons regarding delivery of possession but the Revenue Inspector (P.W.3) contradicts him and states that he had not gone to the village. The Revenue Inspector (P.W.3) submitted a report (Ext.2) to the Revenue Officer over this incident but there is no mention of any overt act alleged to have been made by the accused persons on the relevant date and time. In Ext. 2 there is also no mention of the fact that the accused persons were armed with lathis and axes at the spot. The Revenue Inspector (P.W.3) has of course said that when he had reached the embankment of the tank the accused persons did not allow him to deliver possession of the land. Strangely enough the Revenue Inspector has not mentioned this fact in his report. The Revenue Inspector (P.W.3) has of course said that when he had reached the embankment of the tank the accused persons did not allow him to deliver possession of the land. Strangely enough the Revenue Inspector has not mentioned this fact in his report. It is the categorical statement of this witness (P.W.3) that he did not go to the village as by then the villagers had gathered near the tank. It is not clear what document the Revenue Inspector was carrying for the purpose of effecting delivery of possession to the complainant. Normally, we would expect a writ of delivery of possession specifying the property for which delivery of possession is required to be effected. But we do not find that the Revenue Inspector had carried any such document with him. It is no doubt true that in the file, the Revenue Officer has directed the Revenue Inspector to deliver possession of the case land to the landlords. It is not clear how in the absence of such a document giving the description of the case land the Revenue Inspector could deliver possession of an unspecified plot of land. 10. The complainant says in the complaint petition that the accused persons along with others hurled abusive languages to him by standing on the road and that he was chased by the accused persons but in evidence he did not utter a single word about this matter. Another important fact which should not be lost sight of is that no disinterested person of the village has been examined to prove the resistance to the delivery of possession. Gangadhar (P.W.2) cannot be said to be a disinterested person. The drummer which had allegedly accompanied the complainant has not been examined. It is said that Aparti Biswal (P.W.4) the collection Moharir, Banamalipur has accompanied the Revenue Inspector. There is no evidence to show that he had been directed by the Revenue Officer to accompany the Revenue Inspector. Learned Magistrate could not persuade himself to believe the testimony of the witnesses so as to find the accused persons guilty of the charge. He has analysed the evidence in detail and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case to the hilt. Learned Magistrate could not persuade himself to believe the testimony of the witnesses so as to find the accused persons guilty of the charge. He has analysed the evidence in detail and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case to the hilt. The prosecution has sought to establish the fact that possession of the case land cannot be obtained on 1st of April, 1980 because of resistance by the accused persons and their fellow-men. It is noticed that no complaint with the Police was lodged them and there over this incident. These circumstances coupled with other facts make the prosecution case unworthy of belief. It appears that the learned Magistrate has properly analysed the evidence and came to a correct conclusion. Therefore, no interference with the order of acquittal is warranted in this case. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed