JUDGMENT (ORAL) Vishnu Sahai, J. - By means of this appeal the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 30-1-1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Kavathe Mahankal, in Regular Criminal case No. 82 of 1982, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 324, 323 and 504 IPC read with 34. IPC. Since this appeal was time bared by 37 days an application for condonation of delay ( Criminal Application No. 1037 of 1985) was filed. On the said application rule was issued and the said rule was directed to be heard along with this appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we condone the delay and make the rule issued in Criminal Application No.1 037 of 1985 absolute. 3. In short the 'prosecution case runs as under: On 1-2-1982 between 12 noon to 1 p.m. when the complainant Devappa Hariba Mane P.W. 1 along with his servant Balu Appa Khopt was busy in planting sugarcane in his land he saw respondent no. 1 cutting the branches of acacia tree standing in his land by means of an axe and his goats grazing the leaves of the Neem tree standing therein. The complainant asked respondent no. 1 not to cut the branches of acacia tree and take away the she goats whereupon respondent no. 1 inflicted an axe blow on the left side of his forehead. Meanwhile respondent nos. 2 and 3 came and respondent no. 3 bit him on the wrist of his right hand. The respondents also hurled abuses on the complainant. When his' servant Balu tried to intervene respondent no. 2 intimidated him. Thereafter the respondents are said to have run away. The complainant then proceeded to Kavathe Mahankal Police station and lodged his F.I.R. the same day and a non-cognizable case was registered. On 31-3-1982 the complainant lodged a second F.I.R. which set the criminal law in motion. Earlier on 23-2-1982 he had filed a criminal complaint which merged with the case originating from the second F.I.R. In the usual manner the matter was investigated by the police and the respondent were charge-sheeted. Their defence was one of denial. They pleaded that there was litigation between them and the complainant on account of the neem tree and that the complainant had falsely implicated them at the instance of one Chandrabai Dattu Mane a distant relation of his. 4. Their defence was one of denial. They pleaded that there was litigation between them and the complainant on account of the neem tree and that the complainant had falsely implicated them at the instance of one Chandrabai Dattu Mane a distant relation of his. 4. During trial only one witness viz. complainant was examined. The learned trial Magistrate rejected the testimony of the complainant primarily of the ground that there was a serious dichotomy between the case as set out by the complainant in both the F.I.Rs. This aspect has been detailed by the learned Magistrate in para 4 of the impugned judgment. In the said paragraph the learned Magistrate has also accepted the defence of the respondents. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our judgment the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate is perfectly tenable and the view taken by him is perfectly plausible. 6. We make no bones in observing that even had there been some merit in this appeal we would still have not interfered with the finding of acquittal in view of the petty nature of the offence as also because 16-1/2, years have elapsed since the incident took place and 13-1/2 years since the impugned order of acquittal was recorded. 7. In the result this appeal ~s dl~ missed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. As mentioned in para 2 rule in Criminal Application no. 1037 of 1985 is made absolute. Appeal dismissed.