JUDGMENT 1. - By way of filing instant criminal revision under section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 15.3.1997 passed by Addl. Sessions judge, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar (for short the trial court') in criminal case No. 15/94 by which he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 147, 447 and 436 Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner Khema Ram submitted a written report on 2.7.1993 at P.S. Mandawar on the basis of which FIR No. 147/1993 for the aforesaid offences was registered. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons in the matter for the aforesaid offences. 4. The trial Court read over charge to the accused respondents for the aforesaid offence, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in his support of its case produced as many as 12 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court after hearing both the parties acquitted the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 15.3.1997. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.3.1997 the petitioner has preferred instant revision petition. 8. I have heard counsel appearing for both the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 9. Mr. Praveen Balwada, counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences and the trial court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has failed to consider the statements of prosecution witnesses and erred in passing the impugned judgment. The trial court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence tendered by the complainant as the complainant petitioner was in lawful possession over the land in dispute and the accused persons unlawfully entered in his premises and committed the aforesaid offence. Thus, impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.3.1997 passed by the trial Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 10. Per contra Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, P.P assisted by Mr. Thus, impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.3.1997 passed by the trial Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 10. Per contra Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, P.P assisted by Mr. Mukesh Saini, counsel for the accused respondent submit that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents from the aforesaid offences. Thus no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. 11. Having gone through the impugned judgment 15.3.1997 passed by the trial Court, I find that the trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent. 12. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. 10 page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has 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." 13. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence for which he has been convicted and the trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. 14. It may be stated that in revision against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision dismissed. *******