JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiyan, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. By means of this application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought for granting special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.7.06 rendered by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon (S) in C.R. Case No. 2125/98 under Sections 447/434/427instituted by the complainant/applicant acquitting all the accused persons from the charges of above sections. 3. It would be necessary and apt to discuss the entire factual matrix of the case including the appreciation of the material evidence on record for consideration of this application seeking special leave to appeal. 4. Accordingly, the prosecution case as unfolded by the complainant in his complaint petition may be noticed in brief. In the complaint it was stated that a plot of land measuring 1B-2K-10Ls covered by Dag No. 729/4 of K.P. No. 459 of Bessamari Kisamat under Mouza-Dhing was given possession in his favour by the Hon'ble Court of Asstt. District Judge, Nagaon in T. Ex. No. 1/93 on 30.5.98. The complainant was given possession by the Executing staff of the Hon'ble Court by affixing land mark over the land by breaking down the pucca wall of the house. Put the accused persons on 2.6.98 with intention of causing wrongful trespassed into the land and removed the land marks set by the officials and thereby causing loss to him. Though the complainant has filed complaint before the police for taking action but nothing has been done by them for which he was compelled to file this case. 5. During enquiry the original complainant died and the trial Court by an order dated 26.10.99 allowed the present complainant (Mufiqul Hussain) to continue with the complaint. After having recorded the statement of the complainant and witnesses cognizance was taken under Sections 447/434/427 of IPC against the accused, namely, Sirajul, Abul Basar and Abdul Kasem. 6. During trial accused Sirajul Hussain is reported to have died and the case was abated against him. The substance of accusation under Sections 447/434/427 of IPC was explained to the accused/Respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. In support of the case the complainant examined as many as six witnesses. 6. During trial accused Sirajul Hussain is reported to have died and the case was abated against him. The substance of accusation under Sections 447/434/427 of IPC was explained to the accused/Respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. In support of the case the complainant examined as many as six witnesses. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The plea of the accused persons was complete denial. 8. The learned Magistrate on consideration of evidence of the witnesses so presented and examined by the prosecution took up as many as three points for determination, which are as follows: i) Whether the accused persons on 2.6.98 criminally trespassed into the land of the complainant with a view to remove the landmark as alleged? ii) Whether the accused persons committed mischief to the property of the complainant as alleged? iii) Whether the accused persons committed mischief by removing the landmarks of pucca pillar fixed by the authority in satisfaction of a Court decree as alleged. 9. Thereafter, on proper appreciation and discreet evaluation of the testimony of those witnesses, namely, P.W.1-Ali Shah, P.W.2-Taleb Ali, P.W.3-Ebadul Islam, P.W. 4-Mufikul Hussain, P.W. 5-Benindra Bhattacharya and P.W. 6-Bhadreswar Baruah, the learned Magistrate found that essential ingredients of Section 434 IPC which prescribes punishment for commission of mischief by destroying or moving etc. a landmark fixed by public authority, being the basic foundation of the entire prosecution case, were found not at all available so as to rope the accused persons/Respondents in the offences and resultantly all the Respondents were acquitted by the impugned judgment and order holding that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against them. 10. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned acquittal order, the applicant has preferred this application for granting special leave as already noted above. 11. Challenging the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Barbhuiyan learned Counsel representing the applicant, has forcefully argued that the impugned acquittal order rendered by the learned Magistrate wholly suffers from perversity inasmuch as the learned Magistrate mis-appreciated and mis-construed the entire evidence of all those six witnesses in acquitting the Respondents. 11. Challenging the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Barbhuiyan learned Counsel representing the applicant, has forcefully argued that the impugned acquittal order rendered by the learned Magistrate wholly suffers from perversity inasmuch as the learned Magistrate mis-appreciated and mis-construed the entire evidence of all those six witnesses in acquitting the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the applicant has categorically stated that the learned Magistrate totally ignored the basic evidence so adduced by those witnesses and as such his submission is that since the impugned acquittal is based on perverse finding, the same requires to be interfered with and for such reasons special leave needs to be granted so as to allow the Petitioner to assail the impugned acquittal order through the related appeal filed under the provision of Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Per contra, Mr. Konwar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has strenuously argued that no illegality or perversity has been surfaced on the face of the impugned acquittal order. According to Mr. Konwar, the learned Magistrate in acquitting both the Respondents adequately and scrupulously appreciated the entire evidence on record. Drawing attention of the Court to the finding recorded in the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Konwar has stated that the testimony of each and every witnesses i.e., P. Ws. 1 to 6 was thoroughly and carefully scanned by the learned Magistrate and on being satisfied with the fact situation as projected in the deposition of those witnesses, it was found that prosecution could not make out a case against the Respondents. The learned Magistrate justifiably and legally recorded the order of acquittal of all the Respondents. Hence, according to Mr. Konwar, no interference is warranted with the impugned acquittal order and for such reasons this special leave petition deserves to be rejected in limine. 13. This Court has given anxious consideration to the comprehensive submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel representing the rival parties and has also meticulously examined and appreciated the evidence of all those witnesses. 14. It appears from the analysis of the testimony of those witnesses that the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were found to be general in nature and this Court does fully agree with the views recorded by the trial Court in this regard. 14. It appears from the analysis of the testimony of those witnesses that the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were found to be general in nature and this Court does fully agree with the views recorded by the trial Court in this regard. On the other hand P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 in their deposition clearly and categorically testified that the possession of the land in question was not actually delivered to satisfy the decree passed in connection with the T. Ex. Case No. 1/93. On close perusal of the impugned acquittal order, it appears that the learned Magistrate thoroughly discussed the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and eventually arrived at the finding that there was nothing on evidence to show that the delivery of possession of the land was ever given to the complaint/applicant herein. Rather it was specifically recorded that when P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 approached the relevant school premises for executing the decree in favour of the applicant being the decree-holder, they found that school in question was closed and, as such, they were not in a position to deliver the possession of the decretal property to the decree-holder in absence of the judgment-debtor who was not earlier notified of such execution process. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears to this Court that the impugned judgment was a well reasoned one wherein the entire evidence on record has been carefully and unambiguously recorded. The prosecution, it transpires, through the instant set of witnesses failed to establish any offence of mischief and damages etc. under Sections 447/434/427 IPC against the Respondents. 15. In the backdrop of above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out in this application for granting special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure. against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.7.2006 acquitting the opposite parties/Respondents. 16. Consequently, this application fails and stands dismissed. Application dismissed