ORDER H.N. Sarma, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-4-97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15(3)/95 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 7-6-95 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lakhimpur in C. R. Case No. 198/94 convicting the accused petitioner under Sections 447/34 , IPC and sentencing to any fine of Rs. 400/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. 2. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. F. U. Laskar, learned P.P. appears for the State respondent. 3. Although, the case arises out of a complaint and in fact, the complainant was impleaded as respondent in the above-noted criminal appeal No. 15(3)/93, but has not been impleaded as party respondent in the instant petition. 4. The prosecution case in brief, inter alia, is that a decree in favour of the complainant was passed in Title Suit No. 46/89 for ejectment of the appellant/petitioner and delivery of khas possession to the complainant. Thereafter, the Civil Nazir delivered khas possession of the land described in the schedule of the plaint to the complainant on 17-12-93 by ejecting the accused petitioner. The complainant has further stated that on 23-1-94 when the complainant went to the schedule land for construction of house, found the accused petitioner trespassed into the land and again constructed houses thereon. After taking cognizance of the case, the learned trial Court issued summon to the accused petitioner under Section 447/34, IPC and the offence having been explained to them, the accused petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the learned trial Court examined as many as 3 witnesses on behalf of the complainant, whereas the defence examined none. As many as 5 Exhibits were adduced on behalf of the complainant to prove its case. During the course of trial, the learned trial Court examined as many as 3 witnesses on behalf of the complainant, whereas the defence examined none. As many as 5 Exhibits were adduced on behalf of the complainant to prove its case. Upon consideration of the materials and evidence on record including the decree passed by the Civil Court as well as the report of the delivery of khas possession prepared by judicial staff of the Civil Court, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused petitioner have committed offence under Section 447/34 IPC and accordingly convicted the accused petitioner under the said Sections of law vide judgment and order dated 7-6-95 passed in C. R. Case No. 198/94. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the present petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 15(3)/95 before the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur. The learned Sessions Judge after consideration of the materials and evidence on record vide judgment and order dated 21-4-97, upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and maintained the conviction with further direction to the police of the concerned Police Station to put the complainant into possession by evicting the appellant petitioner by removing constructions therefrom and report compliance. Against the said judgment and order of the learned appellate Court the present revision petition has been filed. 5. In this revision petition it is contended that the learned Courts below have failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective in determining that the complainant was delivered khas possession of the disputed land on 17-12-93 and accordingly the impugned order of conviction and sentence are bad in law. 6. I have heard Mr. F. U. Laskar, learned P.P. for the State respondent and also perused the connected record. 7. The present petition suffers from a vital lacuna that the complainant has not been impleaded as party although the complainant was impleaded as respondent in the criminal appeal as party. It is not understood, why the complainant was not impleaded as a party in the revision petition. However, I am not going to dispose this petition on this count alone. In the instant case the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and the complainant examined himself as PW 1, and all of them supported the case projected in the complaint petition. However, I am not going to dispose this petition on this count alone. In the instant case the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and the complainant examined himself as PW 1, and all of them supported the case projected in the complaint petition. The complainant further proved the Ext. 1, the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Court in T. S. No. 46/89 and Ext. 2 which is the decree drawn up in the said T. S. No. 46/89 on 30-3-91. The claim of the complainant in the said suit was to eject the defendant/petitioner by declaring right, title and interest over the land in question, which was accordingly decreed. The learned District Judge, Lakhimpur also dismissed title Appeal No. 6/91 preferred against the said judgment decree vide judgment dated 28-8-92 and, thereafter, on 17-12-93 in execution of the decree of the T. S. No. 46/89 the plaintiff/complainant got possession of the land by evicting the accused petitioner through the Nazir of the Civil Court. Thus, after eviction of the petitioner, the complainant was in actual physical possession of the disputed land. PW2 Girin Bhyyan, who was the Nazir of the Civil Court at North Lakhimpur has also supported the case of the complainant (PW1) and he corroborated that on 17-12-93 he delivered the possession of the land in question to the complainant. PW3, who as the process server of the civil Court also corroborated the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 stating that he was also present at the time of delivery of the disputed land to the plaintiff. All these witnesses were cross-examined and the veracity of their evidence could not be shaken. On consideration of the evidence and appreciations of materials the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced in the manner aforesaid. The learned Courts below also considered the pros and cons of the case and also considered the documents exhibited by the complainant and did not find any reason to accept the contention of the petitioner. The learned appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner also directed the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station to put the complainant in possession by evicting the appellants/petitioner and removing structures form the schedule land and to report compliance. Further, the trial Court was directed to see that the above directions are complied with immediately. 8. The learned appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner also directed the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station to put the complainant in possession by evicting the appellants/petitioner and removing structures form the schedule land and to report compliance. Further, the trial Court was directed to see that the above directions are complied with immediately. 8. On going through the record, I do not find any irregularity or illegality has been committed in passing the impugned judgments by the learned Courts below. The evidence of the witnesses were properly appreciated and on consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence the learned trial Court has come to a just and proper finding and the learned appellate Court also did not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court. The learned appellate Court also observed that the offence committed by the accused-petitioner amounts to violation of Courts order apart from committing offence under Section 447, IPC and it was accordingly observed that the sentence imposed upon them, in fact, is much lesser and has been very leniently dealt with by the trial Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed