IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.22 of 2011 MADAN PANDEY Versus MAHESH PANDEY AND ORS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Shri Sachchida Nand Choudhary, Advocate -------- 4/ 21.4.2011 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after having gone through the judgment of acquittal dated 5.1.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions judge-cum-Presiding Officer, FTC IV, Nawada in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2003 / 1 of 2010, I am convinced that the order of acquittal was the only result which could have emerged out of the evidence which was available to the trial court. The case was in respect of theft of a registration receipt which was handed over allegedly to the complainant by the registering authority and, which, as per him, had been fully signed indicating the discharge of the obligation of the vendee regarding the payment of consideration money and it was alleged that the receipt was still lying with the complainant. The complainant set up a case that during his absence the accused persons came to his house in the night and by the time it was morning, they were found absent from there and they were further found to have taken away the registration receipt. The only eye witness was the wife of the complainant. The learned appellate court has considered the evidence of each and every witness and has read and appreciated the improbabilities of their claim either of being present or of seeing the 2 accused persons carrying away the document, which could be a very little piece of paper. Some of the contradictions were very material when it was pointed out by the wife of the complainant that the brief-case in which the document was kept itself was taken away which fact was not supported by any other witnesses. P.Ws were pointing out that they knew that the receipt was being taken away on account of a disturbing sound created by the accused persons while removing the document. The court below has noted down the absurd features of the case and thereafter has gone on to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial magistrate. This court after having perused the impugned judgment infers that the filing of the case by the complainant was much by way of creating a cause of action to file a suit to seek the setting aside of the sale deed than in reality been the honest intent to seek justice. It was a frivolous and malicious prosecution. The court does not find any merit in the present application seeking special leave to appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)