IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.75 of 2010 PHOOLWANTI DEVI, W/o. late Chamari Mahto, r/o. Village- Bara, P.S. Muffasil, District- Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Binay Kumar Sinha, S/o. Jagdish Prasad, r/o. village- Veernoyee, P.S. Atari, District- Gaya, 3. Dhirendra Kumar, S/o. Ram Bilas Prasad, 4. Rameshwar Prasad, S/o. Sri Gyan Mahto, 5. Bhikari Mahto, S/o. late Satwan Mahto, 6. Babulal Mahto, S/o. Budhan Mahto, All r/o. Village- Bara, P.S. Muffasil, Distt. Gaya. For the Petitioner: Sri Mahendra Thakur, Sr. Advocate. Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondent: Sri S.N. Prasad, Addl.P.P. ------------ 06. 02.11.2010 Heard. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.06.2010 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya passed in Complaint Case No.503 of 2000/T.R. No. 1480 of 2010, whereby the O.P. Nos.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. for which they were tried by the trial-court. The complainant’s case was that her husband late Chamari Mahto had never executed any will but Prithwi Narayan Mahto, by producing a forged Will before the learned Sessions Judge obtained an order of probate and on the basis of that order he was laying 2 claim over complainant’s land. As many as four witnesses were cited by the complainant and they were also examined before charge but out of them only one namely, P.W.1 Arun Kumar was produced for cross-examination and the other three witnesses namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 were not produced for cross-examination after charge. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 was taken for the purpose of substantiation of prosecution evidence. As to the evidence of P.W.1 he also did not adduce any specific evidence to show any forgery committed in the Will allegedly produced before the Court for obtaining letter of administration in the probate case. The P.W.1 did not adduce any substantiate evidence in support of complainant’s case rather he went on saying that he had told him that late Chamari Mahto had executed Will in favour of Prithwi Narayan Mahto. The complainant had produced the Will which was marked as Ext-2, but any evidence was not led to show or indicate any forgery committed in it. The complainant also did not examine herself in support of 3 her case. Thus, finding it a case being without any cogent or reliable evidence for substantiation of the charges the learned court-below came to the finding that the charges were not proved and consequently the accused were acquitted. I fail to find any perversity or illegality in the judgment as passed by the learned court-below. There is no scope for any interference, accordingly this application is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)