P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of acquittal of the five respondents of the charge under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 are the sons of respondent No. 1. Respondents 2 and 5 are not related to the other respondents. It is alleged that the present appellant had purchased the disputed land from respondent No. 1 and was in cultivating possession of the same. In the year of dispute, i. e. in 1983, the appellant had also raised crop which was forcibly cut and removed by the respondents. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 while admitting about removal of crops claimed that he was in possession of the disputed land and had raised the crop. Other respondents had denied about the allegations. ( 4 ) DURING the trial, complainant was examined as P. W. 1 and P. Ws. 2 and 3 who were engaged for cutting the crop by the complainant supported her version. However, respondent No. 1 himself was examined as D. W. 1. The trial court on discussion of the evidence on record came to hold that though the property had been sold to the appellant, respondent No. 1 was in possession and had raised the crop and as such no offence had been committed. The trial court further held that there was unexplained delay in filing the complaint petition which created doubt regarding the prosecution case. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 who are independent witnesses, the trial court should have held that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the land. THE learned counsel for the respondents has supported the reasonings of the trial Court. ( 6 ) THE incident was of the year 1983 and the order of acquittal was passed in the year 1985. The appeal is pending for about ten years. The dispute revolves round the question of possession which is primarily civil in nature. This being an appeal against an order of acquittal, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the finding of the trial court unless there is perversity in appreciation of evidence. The appeal is pending for about ten years. The dispute revolves round the question of possession which is primarily civil in nature. This being an appeal against an order of acquittal, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the finding of the trial court unless there is perversity in appreciation of evidence. If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court should not reverse the finding of acquittal even though a different view is possible to be taken. In the present case, accused-respondent No. 1 himself has been examined as D. W. 1 and claimed that he had raised the crop. The trial court was of the opinion that the evidence of the accused had not been shaken in any manner. Though P. Ws. 2 and 3 claimed to be the Bhag tenants of the disputed land under the appellant, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the trial court did not place any reliance upon their evidence. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court was not a possible view and as such I do not find any scope for interfering with the order of acquittal specially after lapse of about a decade. Since the dispute is civil in nature, the respective rights of the parties can be decided in a civil forum. It is made clear that the finding in this criminal case would not be binding in any civil dispute regarding right, title and interest of the parties. SUBJECT to the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.