THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.A.No.1456 of 2010 JUDGMENT Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel in C.C.No.368 of 2000, dated 01.02.2006, the appellant-State filed this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, gave a report to the Police, Mulug Police Station, stating that accused Nos.1 to 3 being pattedars of land to an extent of Acs.11.00 each sold the same to him under three different sale deeds on 26.02.1994 for a valuable consideration of Rs.38,500/- each. He states that though the said lands were sold to him, again the accused sold the same by executing executed registered sale deeds in favour of Smt Priya Darshini Sharada Reddy, Indira Priya Darshini Reddy and Priya Darshini Ram Reddy without his knowledge. On receipt of the said report, a case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the said offence. 3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked. 4. Learned Magistrate having considered the oral and documentary evidence found the respondents/accused not guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly, acquitted them. Hence, this appeal by the State. 5. Heard. 6. From a perusal of the judgment impugned, it is evident that the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that neither there was dishonest intention nor suppression of any fact on the part of the respondents while executing the sale deeds under Exs.P4 to P6 in favour of P.W.1. If at all there is any suppression of fact, it is only at the time of execution of sale deeds in favour of said Smt Priya Darshini Sharada Reddy, Indira Priya Darshini Reddy and Priya Darshini Ram Reddy. But the Court below has not examined the said persons to establish that they purchased the very same land. From the above, it is clear that there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the said lands, which were sold to P.W.1, were again put to sale. 7. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that this appeal deserves no consideration and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Date.30.11.2010. sj