IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.48-MA of 2010 Date of Decision: May 11, 2010 Din Mohammed .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Mahavir Parshad & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the applicant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petitioner, vide the application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. prays for leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal. The respondents have been acquitted vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka. It transpires that a complaint was filed purportedly for commission of offence under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC. The respondents, however, were summoned to face trial for commission of offence under Section 417 read with Section 34 IPC only. When the entire prosecution evidence had been concluded, counsel for the complainant made a prayer that the case be treated as one of charge Crl. Misc. Appl. No.49-MA of 2010 [2] under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondents on the ground that no objection was raised by the complainant all through the trial. After conclusion of evidence, a prayer had been made for alteration of charge. The protracted trial has already caused harassment to the accused. I am in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court. The complaint was filed in the year 1999. It was for the complainant to be vigilant. After having led the entire evidence, at the stage of arguments, course of the trial could not have been changed, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. No ground for grant of leave to file appeal against acquittal is made out. The application is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 11, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?