JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 mad with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Reengus (District Sikar) in Criminal Case No. 7/2002 whereby the learned Court acquitted the accused respondents for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court suffers from legal infirmity as the evidence has not been properly appreciated in the matter. It is contended that the accused-respondents were liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence committed by them under Section 447 I.P.C. 3. On the other hand, it has been contended that a reasoned judgment has been passed acquitting the accused-respondents, therefore, does not require any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar. 5. In the present matter, point which requires consideration is as to whether the judgment of acquittal requires to be set aside or the same is required to be maintained. 6. It is to be seen that in the instant case a report was lodged in relation to the incident taken place on 24.11.2002 by Vidhyadhar at the concerned police station wherein it was alleged that the accused-respondents tried to encroach upon his agricultural land. On the day of incident, accused-respondents along with others entered in the field of the petitioner. The agricultural land came in his possession in family settlement. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and after trial the accused-respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.5.2005. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. 7. The learned trial Court after considering the statements of prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion firstly that the F.I.R. was lodged after sufficient delay without there being any explanation and secondly for the reason that the statements of witnesses recorded in the case were contradictory to each other, acquitted the accused respondents. 8. In the instant case, firstly the fact that the disputed land came in possession of the petitioner in the family settlement could not be proved and that is the essence of the present case and secondly it could also not be proved as to whether the witnesses were making correct statements before the Court because there are material contradictions in their testimony. The witnesses even do not know the place where the occurrence took place. In the above circumstances, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence in detail as the same has been discussed in detail by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has recorded its reasons disbelieving the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. There does not appear any illegality committed by the learned trial Court in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The revision petition appears to be devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******