JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 4.5.1988 passed by Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Case No. 226/1983, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges u/ss. 147 & 448 IPC. 2. The leaveto appeal was granted against the accused-respondents on 29.7.1988. 3. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents and carefully examined the material available on record. 4. It has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and in fact the accused-respondents have trespassed over the old property of the complainant. It has further been stated that in such matters when evidence was available on record, then, conviction was required to be passed against the accused-respondents. 5. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents that from the evidence led by the prosecution it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-respondents have committed the offence alleged by the prosecution. It has also been contended that the matter has become quite old and the finding is of the year 1976, and after lapse of 3 decades, even if, it is assumed that the evidence was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court then it will not be proper in the interest of justice to send the accused-respondents in jail in such matters. 6. I have considered the rival submission made before me. 7. It is correct that this incident is of the year 1976 and the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges and some of the accused have died also. After careful examination of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, it appears that the accused-respondents have claimed their rights over the place where it is alleged that they have trespassed. However, it is not necessary for me to enter into detailed discussion of the facts appreciated by the learned trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents placed reliance on a decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Praveen Kumar, 2004 AIR SCW 6897 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere fact that on basis of same evidence another view is possible, it would not be a ground for setting aside an order of acquittal. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents placed reliance on a decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Praveen Kumar, 2004 AIR SCW 6897 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere fact that on basis of same evidence another view is possible, it would not be a ground for setting aside an order of acquittal. 9. After taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this State appeal after lapse of 30 years and particularly when the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charge u/ss. 147 & 448 IPC. 10. In view of the above discussion, the State appeal deserves to be dismissed after confirming the judgment delivered by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 226/1983. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the State stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******