CRIMINAL APPEAL No.30 OF 1993 (U/S) Appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.05.1993 passed in Complaint Case No. 896 of 1989, Tr. No. 1082 of 1993 by Shri Satish Bahadur, 1st Class, Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. KAULESHWAR PRAJAPAT, S/o Late Dhobi Prajapat, Resident of Village-Chakand Bazar, P.S.-Chandauti, Distt.-Gaya. …………. (Appellant) Versus 1. ABDUL SATTAR. 2. Md. Salauddin. Sons of Abdul Gani. Resident of Village-Kathari, P.S.- Chandauti, Distt.-Gaya. 3. Mazahar Imam, S/o not known, deed writer, Registry Office, Gaya. .…….(Respondents) ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************ Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 11.05.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 896 of 1989, Tr. No. 1082 of 1993 for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant is that on 17.08.1988 he got a sale deed executed in favour of the accused but later on he found out - 2 - that the sale deed which was in reach have contained terms and conditions which he had agreed too. The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses whereas the defence examined one witness. The trial court disbelieved the case of the prosecution mainly on the ground that at the time of registration the Registrar explains to the vendor gist of the deed including the description of the land, consideration amount of the sale etc. and therefore the complainant who later on alleged that he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions was in fact not believable. Moreso, on account of the fact that the complainant failed to depose that in fact the Registrar had not complied with the said procedure the complainant and the witnesses also attempted that complainant had appended that he had fully been explained the details of the sale deed and after having instituted the same he was signing upon the sale deed. In view of such assertions and certificate it was not possible for the court to accept the verbal pleas - 3 - of the complainant later on that in fact he without knowing anything about the sale deed had signed as having accepted the terms of the deed. The trial court also considered that there was a discrepancy in the amount which was agreed upon and this was a major flaw in the prosecution case. Considering the above mentioned facts, the Trial Court acquitted the opposite parties. Having gone through the judgment of acquittal and the lower court records, I find no reason to disagree with the same and finding no perversity in the judgment of acquittal. This appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 22nd December, 2009 NAFR/Vikash (Anjana Prakash, J.)