Vijay Lakshmi,J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 7.3.2006 passed by Addl Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2001 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, partly dismissed the appeal of the revisionists and convicted them under Section 427 with simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs.500/- each and under Section 506 IPC with simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1000/- each. 2. The appeal before the Sessions Judge was preferred against the judgement and order dated 29.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II Meerut in Criminal Case No.798 of 2004. Hence, this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State and have perused the records. 4. Some background facts in brief are that on 26.6.1998 at about 6:30 p.m. an FIR was lodged at Police Station Jani, District Meerut, mentioning therein that on 6.6.1998 at about 12:00 p.m., the accused Naresh, Lakchandra, Sheesh Pal, and Surendra started demolishing the wall of informant. When informant tried to stop them they started abusing him and threatened to kill him. After that accused persons totally demolished the wall, due to which the informant had to suffer monetary loss of Rs.25,000/-. The occurrence was witnessed by Rampal, Kripal and Hardan Singh etc. 5. On the basis of this information, a criminal case under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC was instituted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Meerut. The Court of Judicial Magistrate-II Meerut framed charges under sections 427, 504, 506 IPC against the accused persons, recorded the evidence of witnesses and after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced each of the revisionists for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- under section 427 IPC and for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 506 of IPC. 6. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the accused persons preferred criminal appeal which was heard by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut. The Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgement of the lower court by maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 427 and 506 IPC only but imposing a lesser punishment to all the accused as is mentioned in the earlier part of the judgement. 7. The aforesaid order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut. The Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgement of the lower court by maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 427 and 506 IPC only but imposing a lesser punishment to all the accused as is mentioned in the earlier part of the judgement. 7. The aforesaid order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has been challenged in this criminal revision on the grounds that the order impugned is illegal and improper, against the evidence on record so it is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionists has vehemently argued that the First Information Report is highly doubtful. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence is said to be of 6.6.1998 and the FIR of the same is of 26.6.1998 whereas distance from the place of occurrence and Police Station is only 7 kms, still both the courts below while appreciating the evidence, available on record, ignored this vital aspect of the matter. There is no reliable evidence against the revisionists. PW1-Kripal and PW2-Hardan Singh both have not supported the prosecution story. The remaining witnesses are highly interested witnesses but the learned lower Courts have wrongly placed reliance on their testimony without any close scrutiny. 8. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the revisionists that from the side of accused persons two witnesses were produced in defence as DW1 and DW2. But both the courts below acted illegally by ignoring and not relying on their statements. Learned counsel has submitted that the revisionists have been falsely implicated due to enmity. In fact, the revisionists had earlier made a complaint against the informant who had illegally constructed a wall on the land which was recorded as pond in the revenue records. Due to this enmity the informant has filed this criminal case against the revisionists. The dispute between the parties was of civil nature. The disputed wall was demolished by the administration taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the revisionists but both the courts below without paying any attention to this fact have recorded their findings of conviction only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Hence, it is prayed that the order of the lower Court be set aside and the revision be allowed. 9. Hence, it is prayed that the order of the lower Court be set aside and the revision be allowed. 9. A perusal of the lower court record shows that there is no plausible explanation by the prosecution regarding the delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR. Two witnesses PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile. PW3 and PW-4 both have not stated even a word about the delay in lodging the FIR. Thus the case of prosecution becomes doubtful on this count alone. But both the courts below have not considered this aspect. 10. The impugned judgement shows that the learned lower court has based its conviction mainly on the ground that the defence has not been able to prove its case that the disputed wall was demolished by the Administration. 11. The aforesaid ground on which the court below has based the conviction of the revisionists is wholly perverse, illegal and bad in law. The basic principle of law is that prosecution must stand on its own legs. It cannot take benefit out of the weaknesses of defence so the burden was on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts and it was not for the defence to prove their case. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied on a land mark judgment of the Apex Court reported as far back as in AIR 1956 SC 460 (Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab) upholding the above mentioned basic principle of law that burden of proving its case against the accused is always on the prosecution, irrespective of whether or not the accused have made out a plausible defence. In the wake of this basic legal principle, the impugned judgement does not appear to be sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The revision deserves to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 7.3.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut is set aside. The revisionists who are on bail need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. _______________