IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.77 OF 2008 KISHORE YADAV, SON OF DHANUKLAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANDALPUR, POLICE STATION KASIM BAZAR, DISTRICT MUNGER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAMAL DEO PRASAD KAMAL, SON OF LAXMI SAW, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KASIM BAZAR, POLICE STATION KASIM BAZAR DISTRICT MUNGER …………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 10 21.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party. This application has been filed against the order dated 31st July, 2008 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Munger had reversed the order of conviction of the Trial Court and acquitted the Opposite Party No. 2. The case was filed under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and the Trial Court had convicted the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The allegation against the Opposite Party No. 2 is that he had taken Rs. 80,000/- from the complainant in order to secure a job for the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court has not considered 2 the reasonings of the Trial Court. On perusal of the judgment, I find that the Appellate Court had infact considered the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 and rejected their evidence on the ground that firstly the petitioner has not been able to show by evidence, that there was any witness to the actual payment of the amount. The evidence of PW 1 has also been rejected on the ground that he was working in the house of the petitioner and that he does not remember the year, date or month when the actual payment was made. The Court has also disbelieved the evidence of PW 2 on the ground that he has stated that he was a witness only with respect to the altercation taking place between the two persons on the alleged date of occurrence. Similarly, the evidence of the complainant has not inspired confidence of the Appellate Court for the reasons that the complainant has not been able to state as to what type of job he was seeking for his son. The complainant has also not been able to explain before the Court or state in his examination-in-chief as to how he was able to arrange a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to pay to the petitioner in view of the fact that the complainant was in the business of selling milk in a village. He has tried to explain that he has sold the 3 buffaloes of Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- in order to arrange for the said sum of Rs. 80,000/- which was allegedly paid to the petitioner. The complainant has also tried to show that he had arranged the rest of the amount from his relatives and neighbour, but the complainant had not disclosed the name of the relative/neighbour from whom he had borrowed Rs. 40,000/-. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court has not considered the evidence on record seems unfounded. The mere fact that the two judges have come to a separate finding with respect evidence, does not constitute a ground for interference unless the order is absolutely perverse and without reason. In the circumstances aforesaid, there is no merit in the SLA. This SLA is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )