Judgment : 1. The Criminal Revision is filed against the Judgment dated 16.9.2005 rendered in S.C. 112 of 2004 by the Learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichy. 2. The case of the Prosecution is briefly as follows : i)P.W.1 the defacto complainant, Saras-wathi was the resident of Thilai Nagar, 9th cross street. P.W.3 is her husband. P.W.2 is a servant of P.W.1 gz¡izahs;; The grandfather of P.W.1 had two wives. Her father was the son of her grandfather through his first wife. The first accused was the son of her grandfather through his second wife. Second accused was the son of the first accused. There were dispute between the complainant and the accused in respect of the property. Her father owned land of 2 acres and 2 cents near by-pass road and the same was maintained by him. P.W.2 was the servant who helped his father in the agricultural work. ii)In the year 1999, at about 12.30 p.m. the accused cut and removed 99 numbers of cluster of plaintain tress. thioj;jhh;; A complaint was given in the police station and then there was a compromise entered into by the parties. On 19.1.2000 at about 12.30 p.m. the accused along with 10 to 15 members came with aruval end cut and removed 400 numbers of cluster of plaintain trees thioj;jhh;; and they have also threatened Karuppaiya who was supervising the lands, if he prefer a complaint, they will cut him. On the same day they have given a oral complaint. Since at that time the Inspector was not well, they have preferred a written complaint on 28.1.2000, Ex.P.1. iii)P.W.6 was the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.3 and P.W.4 stated that the land in which plaintain trees were raised, belongs to P.W.1. iv)P.W.7 was the Inspector attached to Gandhi market Police Station. He took up the case for further investigation, which was registered on 28.1.2000 by the Sub Inspector Pandian in Crime No. 73 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148,447 and379 and I.P.C. and recorded the statements of Saraswathi (P.W.1) Thirunavukarasu (P.W.3), Arunachalam Pillai, Karuppiah Servai (P.W.2) Sornavel Ganapathi (P.W.6) The first information report and draft sketch prepared by the said Sub Inspector are Exs. P.6 and P.7 P.W.4 was the mahazar witness. After perusing the documents, P.W.7 filed charge sheet on 20.8.2000 under Sections 395 and 450 I.P.C. 3. Before the trial courts P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. P.6 and P.7 P.W.4 was the mahazar witness. After perusing the documents, P.W.7 filed charge sheet on 20.8.2000 under Sections 395 and 450 I.P.C. 3. Before the trial courts P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. P.1 to 7 were marked. M.O.1 was marked. 4. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichy acquitted the accused. 5. Challenging the said judgement P.W.1 defecto complainant had preferred the present revision. 6. The point for consideration is : 1. Whether the revision is maintainablee 2. Whether the accused were guilty under Section 395 I.P.C.e 7. The Point: The Powers of revisional Court has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Brindeswari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448 : (2002) MLJ (Cri) 939 and in (2004) 13 SCC 376. 8. In Hydru v. State of Kerala (2004) 13 SC 374, the Supreme Court had observed as under : “It is well settled that in revision against acquittal by a private party, the powers of the Revisional Court are very limited. It can interfere only if there is any procedural irregularity or material evidence has been overlooked or misread by the Subordinate Court. If upon reappraisal of evidence, two views are possible, it is not permissible even for the appellate Court in appeal against acquittal to interfere with the same, much less in revision where the powers are much narrower.” 9. In T. M. Dhakkal v. James Basnett and Another 2002 SCC (Cri) 1066 the Supreme Court held as under : “Though the High Court has revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice, but whether or not, there is justification for the exercise of that discretionary jurisdiction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The controlling power of the High Court being discretionary, it is required to be exercised only in the interest of justice, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of each particular case and not mechanically.” 10. In the case of Brindeswari Prasad Singh@B.P. Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Another (supra) it was held: “In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the case of Brindeswari Prasad Singh@B.P. Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Another (supra) it was held: “In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 11. In the light of the above decisions, we have to analyse this case. Learned Judge had acquitted the accused on three grounds, namely, there was delay in reaching the first information report to the Court, there was no recovery of cut and removed cluster of plaintain trees and no recovery of the vehicle in which the cluster of plaintain trees were despatched. 12. P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.3. P.W.2 is the servant of P.W.1 gz;izahs;. P.W.1s grand father had two wives. Her father was the son of her grandfather through his first wife. The first accused was the son of her grandfather through his second wife. The second accused was the son of first accused. There were civil litigation between the parties. Many suits were filed and pending in the Court between them. P.W.1 had filed a suit in O.S. 311 of 1993 and in that suit she had filed a interlocutory petition in I.A.No. 195/93 for injunction and that was dismissed. So, an appeal was filed against that order, which was ordered in favour of the accused. Then, Civil Revision petition was preferred against the said order and the same was allowed. Then the matter was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court allowed the S.L.P. and directed the parties to maintain status quc. Though O.S.311 of 1993 was filed by P.W.1 she pleaded ignorance of the suit. There is no satisfactory materials on record to show as to who was actually in possession of the property. Both the parties claim possession over the property. Village Administrative Officer - P.W.6 was examined to prove possession. He spoke that the complainant was in possession of the property. There is no satisfactory materials on record to show as to who was actually in possession of the property. Both the parties claim possession over the property. Village Administrative Officer - P.W.6 was examined to prove possession. He spoke that the complainant was in possession of the property. Since civil suit was pending before the Court, the possession of the land cannot be decided at this stage. Further there is doubt about the possession of the land on the date of occurrence. 13. Further the occurrence took place on 19.1.2000 and the complaint was given on 28.1.2000. For the delay in filing the complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner gave an explanation that since the Inspector was not well, she had given the written complaint at a latter stage (i. e.) on 28.1.2000. The Investigating Officer had admitted that the Sub Inspector was directed to register the case and act according to law. But, it was not done so. There was delay of 9 days in preferring the complaint. Further the first information report reached the Court only on 31.1.2000. There was further delay in despatching the first information report to the Court. There is no satisfactory explanation for this delay on the side of the prosecution. This creates doubt in the case of prosecution. 14. So far as the non-recovery of cluster of plantains is concerned, there is evidence on record that plantains were decayed so they were not recovered and the vehicle was also not recovered. The inaction on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot be a ground to reject the case of the prosecution, if the evidence of prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and reliable. Even then the lower Court found that there was inaction on the part of the Investigating officer. The only witness P.W.2 alone spoke about the cutting and removing of cluster of plaintains and threatening of P.W.2 by the accused. There was scramble for possession and there is no satisfactory evidence as to who was in possession of the property. In such a case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that there is an attempt to cut the cluster of plaintains as claimed by the P.W.1. However, no independent witness was examined to prove the case of prosecution. Further the documents reached the Court very belatedly, which also affected the case of the prosecution. 15. In such a case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that there is an attempt to cut the cluster of plaintains as claimed by the P.W.1. However, no independent witness was examined to prove the case of prosecution. Further the documents reached the Court very belatedly, which also affected the case of the prosecution. 15. On a careful consideration of entire evidence, found that there is no manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice or any procedural irregularity or material evidence has been overlooked by the trial Court and I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 16. In the result, the revision is dismissed. The Judgment dated 16.9.2005 rendered in S.C.112 of 2001 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Trichy is confirmed.