IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.23 of 2008 DINESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,Advocate For the Respondent/Opp.Parties: Mr. Abhimanu Sharma,APP. 03 20.02.2009 Petitioner/complainant takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court ( Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna) in Complaint Case No. 1581( c)/2002/Trial No. 802/2008 whereby the accused persons/ opposite party Nos. 2 to 11 have been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 471,323,448,404,341 and 342 of the Penal Code. The complaint filed by the petitioner gave rise to the present trial. It is alleged therein that one Balo Devi (maternal grand mother) had gifted her property sometimes in 2000 in the name of the wife of the complainant. The prosecution case further is that these opposite parties who were tenant in the disputed house/property started asserting title over the said house/property. The case of the opposite parties as deciphered in paragraph no.11 of the judgment, is that they claim title over the house and property as Balo Devi had executed documents in their favour. The learned trial court has found and recorded that absolutely no document was filed by the prosecution in order to demonstrate his right, title and possession over the disputed property. On the contrary, the opposite parties have brought on record a series of 2 documents in the shape of Exhibit A to Exhibit-E in order to demonstrate that the alleged deed of gift executed in favour of the wife of the complainant on the basis of power of Attorney had already been cancelled by aforesaid Balo Devi ( since dead). It further appears that a Title Suit has already been preferred being T.S. No. 467/01 in which the opposite parties herein have been substituted as plaintiff in place of Balo Devi (since dead). In the back drop of these facts, the learned trial court has evaluated the evidence of PW’s 1, 2 and 3 and has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case as set out in the complaint. This court perused the judgment. The learned trial court in para 12 of the judgment held as under: From perusal of these documents, it transpires that the complainant who was earlier acquired a power of Attorney by Smt. Balo Devi rightly or wrongly and on the basis of that Power of Attorney he gifted the entire property of Balo Devi without her knowledge and consent without her taking into good faith in favour of his wife as transpires from Ext.D and got it presented for registration at Bombay Bala Bala and when this matter came to the knowledge of Balo Devi she filed a Title suit for declaration of alleged deed of gift as null and void which is pending as yet and after death of Balo Devi the accused who was nearest discendent of hierarchy of Balo Devi got substituted at her place as plaintiff. Not only this Balo Devi has also filed a criminal case against the 3 complainant and his wife for creating such a false document and the complainant has admitted in his evidence about this fact.” In what I have observed, the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court cannot be faulted and said to be perverse in law. The application seeking leave has not merit which is accordingly dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)