1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.90 of 2010 DAYANAND @ DAYANAND PD. BURNWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 2. 13.12.2010 This is an application against the judgment and order dated 1st October 2010 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in Complain Case No. 205 of 2006/3259 of 2010 whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to5 who were tried for the charges u/s 468, 420, 465 and 467 IPC, have been acquitted of the charges. In brief the prosecution story as stated by the complainant Dayanand Burnwal is that he owns and possesses 2 decimals of land as described in the plaint and that a pucca building is situated on the land. The further case was that O.P. Nand Kishore Modi, impersonating himself as Dayanand Burnwal, the complainant executed a sale-deed with respect to the land in favour of Shanti Devi (now dead) and that the other three O.Ps. namely, Asgar Ai, Dilip Modi and Madan Tanti were also involved in the commission of the forgery, fabrication and execution of the sale-deed. During the trial, the complainant proved the alleged forged sale-deed which was marked as Ext-2. He has also proved the rent receipt as Ext. 2-series in respect of the land in dispute. The complainant examined himself as C.W.1 and he simply repeated the assertion in the complaint petition while stating that the O.P. Nand Kishore Modi executed the sale-deed in the name of him (complainant) and that the other said 3 O.Ps. were also involved in the commission of the offence. The complainant is not the eye witness to the act of forgery, fabrication and execution of the sale-deed. He has deposed as 2 a hearsay witness. The complainant’s 2nd wetness C.W.2 simply deposed that on 3rd February 2003 when the sale-deed was executed by O.P. Nand Kishore Modi, he was present in the Registry Office, but he does not say about the specific acts or action done or committed by the O.Ps. constituting the offence. The 3rd witness C.W.3 examined by the complainant was also a hearsay witness who simply stated that he had heard that O.P. Nand Kishore Modi and others had fraudulently executed the sale-deed with respect to the complainant’s land. The 4th witness C.W.4 is also a hearsay witness who deposed in court disclosing his hearsay knowledge about the occurrence. The two other witnesses of formal nature were also examined in this case. The learned trial court has mentioned in judgment that the complainant has not filed any petition for cancellation of sale-deed. It was also found by the trial court that the civil litigation in the nature of title suit was also pending between the parties. On the basis of the above evidence as brought on the record by the complainant, the learned trial court came to find that the complainant had not been able to substantiate the charges and the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted of the charges. Thus on consideration of the evidence and the facts and circumstances as discussed above, I find that the learned trial court has taken a correct view and there is no perversity and illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Thus the findings no illegality, this appeal is dismissed. Jay/ (C.M.Prasad,J) 3