IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.37 of 2010 Ram Nandan Prasad, S/o. late Shyam Lal Sao, r/o. Mohalla- Pir Mansoor, Dharamshala Road, P.S. Civil Lines at and District- Gaya. ------------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Md. Sahnawaj, 3. Md. Mumtaj, Both sons of Md. Yasin Mian, r/o. P.G. Road, Loha Dukan Jehanabad, P.S. Jehanabad Sadar, District- Jehanabad. ----------O.Ps. ----------- 03. 19.05.2010 Limitation matter was heard and delay in filing of the application is condoned. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2010 as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya under Complaint Case No. 404 of 2006/184 of 2010 whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3, who were tried for the charge under Section 406 of I.P.C., have been acquitted of the charge. The petitioner/complainant filed his complaint alleging that he sold iron sheets worth Rs.2,21,752/- to the accused but the accused paid Rs.1,85,000/- only towards the price and Rs.36,752/- remained due for payment and the O.Ps. issued a ‘Purja’ for the due amount. The 2 petitioner/complainant further alleged that on 07.02.2006 the complainant again sold iron sheets worth Rs.42,456/- to the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 for which Rs.24,000/- was paid towards price and a sum of Rs.18,456/- remained due for payment. Thus, the petitioner/complainant alleged that a sum of Rs.55,208/- remained due and it was never paid by the O.P. Nos.2 & 3. Regarding the order of acquittal learned trial-court considered that the petitioner/complainant claimed that he was a commission agent dealing in iron sheets but no paper showing the agency was produced. Learned trial court also considered that the complainant was also not in a position to produce any licence with regard to the shop run by him for the purpose of the sale of the iron sheets. It was also considered by the learned trial-court that the complainant was unable to produce any paper to show that he was engaged in dealing in iron sheet and that he paid any VAT on the sale of such articles. It was also considered by the learned trial-court that 3 the first supply which is stated to be on 09.09.2004 under which a sum of Rs.36,752/- is stated to be a due but despite this due amount the petitioner/complainant again states to have sold further iron sheets to the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 for which a further sum of Rs.18,456/- remained dues, therefore, learned trial-court came to find that it was not breach of trust indicating any fraud in the mind of the O.Ps. at the very time of the purchase but it may be entirely a dispute relating to business transaction giving rise to a cause for civil litigation. Considering as such the learned trial-court recorded an order of acquittal. In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed at the admission itself. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)