JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.4.1991 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Jajpurin I.C.C. No. 12 of 1989 (T.R. No. 130 of 90), wherein, he acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge u/s 379 of the I.P.C. 2. The Appellant was the complainant and the Respondent were the accused before the Court below. As per the complaint petition, the complainant was the owner in possession of the disputed land appertaining the Plot No. 166 under khata No. 645. He was in cultivable possession of the same since long. On 8.1.1989, at about 9.00 A.M., all the accused persons forcibly entered upon the said land and cut a Pipal tree standing over it to different sizes. They also cut the branches and took away the logs and branches. When the complainant protested, accused Dhira Sahoo, Bira Sahoo and Surendra Sahoo chased him to assault, but on the intervention of the witnesses, they could not be successful in their attempt. Then, the complainant reported the incident before the local police and as no action was taken, he got the complaint petition scribed through P.W.2, an advocate-clerk and filed it before the S.D.J.M., Jajpur. After recording the initial statement of the complainant and perusing the complaint petition, the S.D.J.M., took cognizance of the offence u/s 379 of I.P.C. against all the accused persons and transferred the case to the Magistrate, First Class, Jajpur for trial. 3. The plea of the accused persons was complete denial of their involvement in the crime. Even though they did not take specific plea of bona fide claim of right, while being examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during cross-examination, it was suggested on their behalves to the prosecution witnesses that they had also right over the disputed land and the Pipal tree in question. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined five witnesses in all, as against one by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charge u/s 379 of the I.P.C, holding that prosecution failed to produce the up-to-date record of right, that it did not examine the material witnesses and that the bona fide claim of right raised by the accused persons was not colourable pretence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charge u/s 379 of the I.P.C, holding that prosecution failed to produce the up-to-date record of right, that it did not examine the material witnesses and that the bona fide claim of right raised by the accused persons was not colourable pretence. Being aggrieved with the said order of acquittal, the complainant (hereinafter referred as 'Appellant') has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the accused-Respondent had not taken specific plea of bona fide claim of right over the disputed land and the tree in question. So, the trial Court committed gross error in acquitting the accused-Respondent on that ground. As stated earlier, the trial Court did not acquit the accused-Respondent only on the ground of bona fide claim of right, but on other grounds also. Moreover, even if an accused has not taken the specific plea of bona fide claim of right over the disputed property, at the time of recording of his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, still then, if there are materials on record to support such a plea, the Courts are not debarred from utilizing such material in his favour. In the present case, it transpires from the evidence of P.W. 1, the Appellant himself that a suit is pending between him and the Respondent in respect of the disputed land wherein order of status quo was passed. He also filed a Misc. Case before the Civil Court to take appropriate action against the Respondent for violating the status quo order. So, it cannot be said that there was no semblance of right of the accused-Respondent over the disputed land so as to raise the plea of bona fide claim of right over the same. On this ground alone, the appeal cannot stand. 6. The occurrence took place in the year, 1989, and, in the meantime, about two decades have been elapsed. Respondent 5 and 6 were 55 and 58 years old at the time of occurrence, so they are now aged 75 and 78 years respectively. The other accused-Respondent were within the age group of 22 of 28 years by that time. Now they are sufficiently matured. Respondent 5 and 6 were 55 and 58 years old at the time of occurrence, so they are now aged 75 and 78 years respectively. The other accused-Respondent were within the age group of 22 of 28 years by that time. Now they are sufficiently matured. Moreover, it is the settled principle of law that if the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one, the Appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with it. In the present case, the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one. Furthermore, the occurrence took place on 8.1.1989. This appeal was preferred in the year, 1992. It has been pending since about 15 years. It would be travesty of justice to set aside the order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction at this belated stage. 7. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court are hereby confirmed. The bail bonds executed by the Appellant are cancelled. Final Result : Dismissed