JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashwani Kumar Singh. J.- The appellant is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 251 (C) of 1990 corresponding to Tr. No. 517 of 2000. In the said complaint case, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Buxar after holding trial convicted opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 379 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 147. rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 379 and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 8, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The said appeal was numbered as Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 2000. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Buxar by his judgment dated 21.5.2002, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the 'appellate Court preferred S.L.A. No. 32 of 2002 before this Court. By order dated 31.7.2003, leave was granted to the appellant to file appeal. Accordingly the present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.5.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Buxar in Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 2000. 2. As per the complaint the prosecution story is that on 27.5.1990 at about 7 p.m., the complainant was at his "Bathan" situated over plot no 358 appertaining to khata No. 490. The accused persons (opposite parties).' after having formed an unlawful assembly wanted to put a hut on the land. The complainant protested and raised alarm, on which, several villagers assembled. The accused persons, Namely Matwar Dusadh, Lekhraj Dusadh & Vishwanath Dusadh entered into the hut belonging to the complainant and took out two oxes from the hut. The accused namely, Bihari Dusadh and Bijay Dusadh set fire to the hut on the instigation of the accused Sri Krishna Koiri. Due to mis-chief committed by the accused persons the but of the complainant was reduced into ashes. The accused namely, Bihari Dusadh and Bijay Dusadh set fire to the hut on the instigation of the accused Sri Krishna Koiri. Due to mis-chief committed by the accused persons the but of the complainant was reduced into ashes. It has further been alleged that Surjdeep, Shiwanand and Prmod went to police station to give information regarding it but the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested all the three and forwarded them to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has also been alleged that the complainant sustained a loss of about 6.000/- rupees in the alleged incident. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. Some witnesses were also examined on his behalf in course of inquiry. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The accused persons were summoned to face trial. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused persons under Sections 147, 379 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In course of trial altogether four witnesses including the complainant (appellant). were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them PW 1 did not appear for cross-examination and. as such his evidence was discarded by the trial Court. On conclusion of the trial; the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner indicated hereinabove. As noted above the accused persons went in appeal and the appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. The defence case in short is that the accused persons committed no offence. There is a counter case and the complainant had belatedly filed the present case in order to create defence in the case in which the members of the prosecution party were being prosecuted. 'The further defence of the accused is that the land in question originally belonged to the State of Bihar and the State of Bihar had settled the land in favour of the accused persons by virtue of Parwana on 5.6.1989. The Parwana has been brought on record on behalf of the defence and has been marked as Ext.-A. The accused persons were also paying rent with respect to the land in question. The order sheet regarding settlement and the rent receipts were also brought on record on behalf of the defence. 5. In the counter case filed on behalf of the accused persons the complainant and others were convicted. The order sheet regarding settlement and the rent receipts were also brought on record on behalf of the defence. 5. In the counter case filed on behalf of the accused persons the complainant and others were convicted. However, they were subsequently acquitted in appeal. It appears from the record that a suit bearing Title Suit No. 66 of 1990 was filed by the father of the appellant namely. Vishwanath Prasad Sahu with respect to the land in question. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate Court came to a conclusion that there was a bona fide land dispute between the parties. The accused persons had filed case against the complainant and others much before the institution of the complaint and in that case three persons were apprehended by the police which also find mention in the complaint. Considering these aspects the appellate Court held that the belated complaint filed by the complainant seemed to be a case filed in retaliation to the case filed on behalf of the accused persons. In that view of the matter the appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court. 7. I have heard the parties and perused the records. 8. I find that the trial Court has given clear cogent and convincing reasons for recording the judgment of acquittal. The judgment passed by the appellate Court is neither perverse nor illegal. 9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly. Appeal dismissed.