SBCRRP977/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.977/2010 Rambeti Vs. Ram Ji Lal Date of Order ::: 18.08.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Manoj Avasthi, Counsel for petitioner Shri Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor #### By the Court:- This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner assailing the order dated 14.05.2010 of the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, by which the appeal of the State of Rajasthan against acquittal of the accused-respondent, was rejected. The accused-respondent was prosecuted for committing offence under Sections 419, 420 and 471 of the IPC, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dholpur, by order dated 16.09.2009 acquitted him for all the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined and the evidence clearly proved the offence against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt that accused-respondent had, by claiming himself to be son of Lalpat, secured employment in place of petitioner's husband deceased Lalpat and that despite such evidence, the respondent was wrongly acquitted. The ingredients, as envisaged under Section 415 IPC, are fully satisfied i.e. SBCRRP977/2010 // 2 // deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing. It is contended that by reason of fact that accused-respondent secured employment claiming himself to be son of Lalpat, whereas he is son of Ganpat and thereby he deceived the complainant and her family. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing the impugned orders, I find that both the courts below concurrently held that alleged offence of cheating against accused-respondent was not made out on the basis of evidence and the evidence that was produced, did not prove such offence beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, it has also been proved before the courts below that there were certain documents in which father's name of the accused-respondent was recorded as Lalpat; it has further been proved that respondent Ram Ji Lal was appointed with Indian Railway 30 years ago and that he has now attained the age of 55 years. If at all the petitioner felt that respondent committed such fraud or cheating with her and her family, there was no reason for her to have remained silent for all these years. The witnesses PW-8 R.K. Saxena, PW-9 V.K. Tripathi and PW-10 M.K. Shrivastava, all officials of the Railways, in their statements, have stated before the court that they never received any complaint against the accused-respondent that he secured employment on the strength of any forged certificate. The allegation in the complaint on the basis of which the respondent was prosecuted that in the voter-card the father's name of the respondent SBCRRP977/2010 // 3 // is Ganpat whereas he secured the employment showing the his father's name as Lalpat, was not accepted by the learned courts below to have been proved because PW-6 Ramesh Babu Sharma, LDC, working in the Office of the District Collector, Dholpur, clearly stated that though it was possible in the preparation of voter-list that name of parents is incorrectly mentioned and such mistakes are known to occur many times. In totality of the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders which calls for any interference by this court in this revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//