JUDGMENT : S. C. Datta, J. - This is an appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in I.C.C. Case No. 16 of 1984 of his Court. This case had been instituted on a complaint filed by the present petitioner Chaitanya Charan Sahu. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the son of Chaitanya Charan Sahu had obtained the disputed land from the Government as a lessee on 8.4.1983 and thereafter, raised Horsegram in it but on 11.1.1984, the accused persons forcibly took away the same crop. On such complaint, charge under Section 379, I.P.C., had been framed against all the accused persons. 3. The accused persons had, however, denied the allegation. They claimed that the complainant was never in possession of the disputed land. 4. Trial proceeded and the prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses, P.W.1 is the complainant himself while P.W. 4 is his son, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are said to be the boundary men of the disputed land. The complainant (P.W.1) has stated his case in the complaint petition during trial. The complainant claims that his labourers, namely, Sarat and Punei had ploughed the land on the 20th day of Aswina and he himself had sowed the Horsegram Sarat and Punei had, however, not been examined. Nor any explanation was offered for their non-examination. P.W.4 is his son. he had, however, corroborated the father regarding the occurrence. During cross-examination, the complainant (P.W.1) admits that P.W.2 is his relation. P.W.3 who is said to be the bounderyman cannot say the khata and plot number of his land bordering the disputed land. He seeks to establish that the accused persons entered into the disputed land and forcibly took away Horsegram. It may be mentioned that during the hearing of the appeal none appeared on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents was, however, present and argued the case for the respondents with force. He pointed out that all the witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition had not been examined by the prosecution nor did the complainant examine the labourers who had actually ploughed the suit land. It has been elicited from the complainant (P.W.1) that the complainant had lodged a report with the local Police-station 15/20 days prior to the date of occurrence. He pointed out that all the witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition had not been examined by the prosecution nor did the complainant examine the labourers who had actually ploughed the suit land. It has been elicited from the complainant (P.W.1) that the complainant had lodged a report with the local Police-station 15/20 days prior to the date of occurrence. It was not clear what was the nature of the complaint before the police. I find from his evidence that a civil suit is continuing between the parties over the disputed land. It appears that the learned Magistrate noticed some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He found that the prosecution had become unsuccessful in establishing the fact that the complainant or his son was present on the disputed land at the time of alleged occurrence. We have noticed earlier that in the petition of complaint six persons had been named as witnesses but out of them P.W. 2 and 3 have only been examined. No explanation has been offered as to why the other witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. It is noticed that the learned Magistrate has elaborately analysed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and came to the clear conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate had the occasion to hear the witnesses and to note their demeanour. He could not persuade himself to believe their testimony. On scrutiny of the judgment of the trial Court, it cannot be said that it is perverse or not founded on materials on record. Therefore, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no hesitation to conclude that the learned Magistrate was quite justified in recording an order of acquittal. So, in my view, the judgment needs no interference. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed