IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.84 OF 2008 BINOD KUMAR PATWA, SON OF OM PRAKASH PATWA, RESIDNET OF DURUKHI GALI, POLICE STATION PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PAPPU LAL PATWA, SON OF LATE BANARSI LAL PATWA, RESIDENT OF SADAR BAZAR PHARI, POLICE STATION JAMALPUR, DISTRICT MONGHYR ******** 3 17/04/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1361(C) of 2001, Trial No. 1801 of 2008 by which Opposite Party No. 2 has been acquitted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party No. 2 to take his shop on rent and it was agreed between them that he would pay Rs. 95,000/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- would be paid to the landlord. The allegation is that the Opposite Party No. 2 took the money but did not allow him to enter into the shop and one Hari Prasad and Ishwar Prasad came to the shop and threw the petitioner out of the shop. The Trial Court while considering the evidence has found several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses apart from which the witnesses 2 have not been able to show that the parties have agreed to give the said shop on rent. The petitioner has also filed the copy of the agreement before the Trial Court but the Trial Court while discussing it, observes that it does not bear the signature of the petitioner and as such on the basis of that agreement it can not be concluded that parties have agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned in agreement and they have not rented out the premises to the petitioner, and as such the story of giving Rs. 95,000/- as advance is not proved. Moreover, the Trial Court has also considered the fact that Hari Prasad and Ishwar Prasad have not been made accused in this case and that the landlord is also not accused who is said to have received Rs. 25,000/- out of the total amount. On considering the evidence, the Trial Court has held that petitioner has not been able to substantiate his case us 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the impugned judgment and after hearing the parties, I find that the reasons given by the Trial Court are neither perverse nor unreasonable and as such this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the SLA is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )