M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the complainant under Sec. 378, Cr. P. C against the judgment in C. C. No 24/1980 dated 31-1- 83 of the Judicial Magistrate of the first Class, Nagarkurnool.

( 2 ) THE complaint filed by the complainant against the two accused is under Section 447, I. P. C. read with Sec. 448, thereof. It is alleged that the complainant and others are absolute owners and possessors of land, bearing s. No 152 of an extent of 16. 34 guntas in Laknaram village, Achempet Taluk. It is alleged that, in the year 1975. the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 had forcibly evicted the complainant and others from the extent of 3 acres on the east of S. No. 152, shown in red colour in the sketch map, annexed to the complaint. The complainant filed a civil suit O. S. No 67/75 for recovery of possession of the suit land in the Court of the District Munsif, Nagarkurnool, by evicting the accused A-1 and A-2, that the said suit was dismissed on 9-2-76, and the complainants preferred a civil appeal A. S. No. 31/76 to the District Court mahaboobnagar. It is further stated that the said appeal was allowed on 22-9-79, directing restoration of possession in favour of the complainant, by evicting a-1 and A-2. Thereafter, the complainant and others filed E. P. No. 2/79 against A-1 and A-2 for delivery of possession of the suit land i. e. , 3 acres on the east of S. No. 152 as shown in red colour in the sketch map. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the bailiff came to the spot on 13-12-1979 and delivered possession of the suit land, in favour of the complainant, along with the standing ground-nut crop and A-1 and A-2 were evicted. The oil engine, installed by A-1 and A-2 was also removed. The complainant continued to be in possession of the land but the accused unlawfully stopped the complainant and others from erecting a pakota to their well. As the S. I. of police, Achampet, did not take any action on the complaint given by the complainant, the present complaint is filed against the accused. The trespass was at 10. 30 a. m. on 11-2-1980 when the accused, with criminal intention, trespassed into the land and forcibly installed the oil engine on the well existing in the suit land, despite objection raised by the complainant.

( 3 ) THE accused 1 and 2 denied the commission of the offencs. The complainant examined three witnesses. Though oriqinally there were four complainants 1 including P. W 1, subsequently the cause title of the complaint petition was amended as per orders of the Court in Crl. M. P. No. 68/81 dated 30-4-1981 and the name of the 3rd accused was deleted,

( 4 ) THE complainant examined p. Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. P-1 to p-8, while the accused examined d. W. I. On the basis of the evidence, so produced the learned Magistrate, acquitted the accused stating that the dispute in question was the subject matter of an appeal in the High Court and was therefore of a civil nature and cannot be decided by the criminal court. It cannot he said that he has given any positive findings on the question of trespass for he mainly rested his case on the civil dispute pending in the High court. It is against this judgment that the complainant has preferred this appeal.

( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel, it is necessary to mention certain subsequent events. Against the judgment in A. S. No. 31/76, District Court, Mahbubnagar above mentioned the accused preferred s. A. No. 990/79 in this Court and obtained stay of delivery of possession on 20-12-197y from this Court The stay was, however, vacated on 7-3-80, inasmuch as the plaintiffs produced evidance to show that possession was already delivered on 13-12-1979 and full satisfaction was recorded in E. P. No. 2/79. Ultimately, the second appeal was dismissed in this Court on 19-4-84 by Kodandaramayya J. and a review petition filed by the judgment-debtors (accused) was dismissed on 8-2-85. Without mentioning the above litigation, the accused filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document