Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with Pundeo Ram were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Secs. 144, 379 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code ( Indian Penal Code, 1860 ). Bharat Mahto, Pundeo Ram. Ram Kisun Sahni and Bhagwan Sahni were prosecuted also for the charges u/s. 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Accusation against them, as transpiring in the petition of complaint brought on the behest of the appellant was that on 20th March, 1988, they carried out fishing operation in the pond bearing R.S. Plot No. 432 which situated in village Maharani, Police Station Mahamadpur, in the district of Gopalganj and happened to be in possession of the appellant. It was alleged that they removed fish of the value of Rs. 2000 from the pond and on resistance, threatened to assault. 2. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including ocular and also some formal witnesses and the trial Court on consideration of there being bona fide land dispute between the parties, acquitted the respondents and also Pundeo Rai of the charges brought against them. The aggrieved complainant has challenged the findings recorded by the trial Court in this appeal with assertion that the evidence placed on the record have not been meticulously appreciated by the trial Court and has reached an erroneous conclusion in acquitting the respondents and others. 3. While admitting this appeal, notices were also issued to the respondents and service of notice was considered to be proper and valid. However, on repeated calls, none has appeared on behalf of both of the parties. Record has been perused. It appears from the records of the Court below that while the case of the appellant had been that the pond in question appertains to R.S.P. No. 432, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 claim title and possession over the disputed plot which allegedly bears R.S.P. Nos. 776 and 778. Learned Magistrate, who was in seisin of the proceeding, came to the conclusion that considering the prosecution case to be true on the face value, no case of dishonest intention for removal of fish from the pond was made out and the dispute between the parties being of the nature of land dispute, acquitted the respondents and others of the charges. It does not appear that the finding recorded by the Court below was either perverse or against the weight of mass of evidence. There being no merit, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.