1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.2, Daya Ram for offence under Section 447 IPC.

2. Mr. Ajay Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that according to the petitioner, Brij Mohan. his land was situated on the Shahapura road, in front of the Electricity Board, in Khasra No.104. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.2 had committed criminal trespass by parking his thresher in Khasra No.104. Instead of appreciating the petitioner's testimony, the learned Magistrate has erred in concluding that the land in dispute was in Khasra No.362 and the said land is in the possession of respondent No.2 himself.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Harsh Saini, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has contended that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence to prove the fact that Khasra No.104 actually belonged to him. Not only the ownership, but the possession of the land has to be proven before a case can be made out for criminal trespass. The learned Magistrate has clearly stated that the complainant has