JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Champawat, pointing out that the respondents-accused have not removed the but established on the land of petitioner complainant, contends that the Appellate Court should not have been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the respondents. 2. The trial court vide judgment dated 22.6.95 had convicted the respondents under section 447 IPC and had sentenced them to 3 months S.I. In appeal the conviction of the respondents was maintained, but looking to the fact that this was the first offence of the accused persons they were released under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. It cannot be said that the learned Appellate Court has committed any error in granting probation to the respondents. Section 361 Cr.P.C. enjoins upon the Court to grant probation to an accused in such matters. If the Magistrate wants to pass an order of sentence in such matter, he has to record reasons. The offence under section 447 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for three months or fine. The learned Appellate Court was not wrong when it cave the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the respondents. 4. The next contention of Mr. Champawat is that the Appellate Court ought to have passed an order of restoration of possession of the land to the complainant under section 145 Cr.P.C. It is noticed that the petitioner had not made an application before the trial court for the restoration of the land and he had also not challenged the judgment of the trial court by preferring a revision petition. Now after four years the petitioner-complainant cannot be heard to say that an order for restoration of possession should have been passed. 5. Moreover an order under section 456 Cr.PC. does not prejudice any right or interest to or any immoveable property which a person may be able to establish in a civil suit. Thus ultimately it is a civil suit. Thus ultimately it is a civil suit where the rights of the parties to be established. In the cases under section 447 IPC only question of possession is decided. It is, therefore, not always necessary to pass an order of restoration of possession of the immoveable property, in a case under section 447 IPC. 6. There is no merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******