The prosecution must prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and any delay in filing a complaint must be justified by a satisfactory explanation.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Datta, J. - This is an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 7.7.86 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandapara, in I.C.C. No. 25/81.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant Lingaraj Rath, is the authorised agent of his brothers, namely, Prafulla Chandra Rath, Sankarsan Rath and Ramesh Chandra Rath of village Khandapara. The complaint was lodged by him against the accused persons on the allegation that they had obstructed him in the matter of obtaining delivery of possession of the case land. It is the came of the prosecution that the accused persons are tenants under his brothers. They having defaulted in payment of rent, the landlords brought a proceeding for eviction of the accused persons from the case land and obtained an order in their favour. The Revenue Officer passed an order of eviction against the accused persons. As against the order of Revenue Officer, the accused persons preferred appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Puri but became unsuccessful. After the disposal of the appeal, the Revenue Officer of Khandapara initiated execution proceeding, for eviction of tenant accused persons for non-compliance of the direction of the appellate Courts. The Revenue Officer issued notice to the accused persons to show-cause as to why they will not be evicted from the land. The accused persons did not show cause and as such on 20th March, 1980, the Revenue Officer issued cease cultivation notice to the tenants with effect from 1st April, 1980. The Revenue Inspector was also directed by the Revenue Officer to deliver possession of the case land on 1st April, 1980 to the landlord in presence of two persons and submit his report. Pursuant to the order of the Revenue Officer dated 20th March, 1980, Revenue Inspector, Banamalipur gave notice to both the parties to remain present on 1st April, 1980 for the purpose of delivery of possession. The present complainant along with Gangadhar Das and Budhi Mahara, Drummer went to village Balianuagaon on 1st April, 1980 at about 8.30 a.m. By the time the complainant reached near the spot the accused persons along with some other persons variously armed, raised hullah and held out threat to the complainant not to take possession of the case land. When the Revenue Inspector with three assistants reached the spot at about 10.30 a.m. the accused persons protested and obstructed the Revenue Inspector by raising hullah. In consequence thereof the Revenue Inspector could not give delivery of possession to the complainant and all of them returned. According to the complainant, the place of occurrence is on the embankment of a pond locally known as 'Jari' pond.

3. The Revenue Inspector reported the above incident to the Revenue Officer on the day of incident detailing the grounds for which he could not effect delivery of possession of the case land to the complainant. On 5th of April, 1980, the complaint had also filed a petition before the Revenue Officer for taking appropriate action against the accused persons under Section 63 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and to give delivery of possession of the land in question in presence of police. Therefore, the Revenue Officer heard the matter and passed an order on 21.4.1980 asking the complainant to seek redress of his grievances in appropriate Court of law. Thereafter, the complainant filed another petition on 30th June, 1980 with a prayer to recall his order dated 21st April, 1980. It is alleged that the Revenue Officer passed no order on this petition and so the complainant was compelled to file this complaint petition before the Magistrate for appropriate action on 31st March, 1981. Accordingly, the present case started. The charge under Sections 148/341/353/ 506/34 I.P.C. had been framed against the accused persons. Subsequently, on prayer of the learned counsel for the complainant, charge under Section 68 of the O.L.R. Act was added and the accused persons faced trial befo