JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Shimbu Dayal, against the order dated October 4, 2007 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantaramgarh Dist. Sikar in Criminal Case No. 268 of 1996 whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 420/120 B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on July 4, 1992 complainant petitioner Shimbhu Dayal, Hema Ram and Dula Ram lodged a report with Police Station Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar and it was mentioned that land bearing Khasra No. 786, 787, 788, 789 and 790 situated at Village Naya Bas, Taan Mandha (Sujrera) Tehsil Dantaramgarh Distt. Sikar, belonged to Hemaram, Dula and Uda Ram and they were having their one third one third shares and they were cultivating the aforesaid land. There was no one in the family of Uda Ram. With a view to grab one third share of the property in question, the accused respondents entered into conspiracy and they created a false consent deed. On the basis of false documents on March 22, 1990 the shares was entered in the names of the accused respondents and false persons were produced before the Assistant Land Settlement Officer and mutation of the aforesaid land was entered into the names of the accused respondents. Above proceedings were done by the accused persons by way of impersonation and in conspiracy with each other. After getting information of the aforesaid offence, the complainant, Dula Ram and Hema Ram submitted appeals for cancellation of the aforesaid mutation before the Court of ASO Dantaramgarh. After investigation the accused respondents were charge sheeted for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC. Charges were framed against all the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. During the course of trial accused Arjun expired and proceedings against him were dropped. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. Thereafter statements of the accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. where accused respondents denied their participation in the incident and in defence they examined witnesses and produced 7 documents. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties acquitted the accused respondents by the judgment dated October 4, 2008. Instant revision petition has been filed against the order of the ACJM. 3. where accused respondents denied their participation in the incident and in defence they examined witnesses and produced 7 documents. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties acquitted the accused respondents by the judgment dated October 4, 2008. Instant revision petition has been filed against the order of the ACJM. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. Thus the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offences charged against them. The learned counsel further argued that the trial court committed error in not considering the prosecution evidence which was completely specific and without any inconsistency. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality of infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SCC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 6. Thus, the order passed by the Court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******