Patna High CourtRamji Sah vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 July, 2011Author:Gopal PrasadBench:Gopal PrasadCriminal Appeal (U/S) No.4 of 1997
                     Against the judgment and order dated 23.01. 1996, Passed by Shri
                     B.P. Baitha, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint
                     Case No. 79 of 1994.

                     RAMJI SAH SON OF PEYARE SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
                     BAGAHA, POLICE STATION BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT-
                     BEGUSARAI.
                                ......COMPLAINANT.....APPELLANT
                                       Versus
                     1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                     2. MOSSOMAT KARMAITI KHATOON ALIAS BIBI
                     KARMAITI KHATOON WIFE OF LATE MOHAMMAD
                     SHEKHAWAT.
                     3. MOHAMMAD SALAMAT SON OF ABDUL MAIN,.
                     4. MOHAMMAD IDRISH SON OF MOHAMMAD SALAMAT,.
                     5. MOHAMMAD HAKIM SON OF LATE MOHAMMAD
                     SHEKHAWAT, ALL NOS. 2 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF
                     VILLAGE FULHARI, POLICE STATION BIRPUR, DISTRICT-
                     BEGUSARAI. ....ACCUSED .....RESPONDENTS.

                     For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Adv.
                     For the state: Mr. Permeshwar Mahta, A.P.P.

                                     PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD

Gopal Prasad, J.Heard.2. This appeal is against the order of acquittal. The

                   appellant filed a case for offence underSection 406,420,467,

                   and468of the Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution as alleged that there was

                   greement for sale land of khata no. 198, khesra (plot) 917 for

                   which he paid the consideration of 16000/- the sale deed was

                   executed but in the sale deed plot no. wrongly mentioned as 992

                   of khata no. 127. The land of sale deed has been alleged to have

                   been purchased from accused no. 1 who is respondent no. 2 who

                   is an old lady it alleged wrongly plot and khata recorded.
 Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.4 of 1997 2dt.05-07-20114. However, trial court on consideration of facts

                    and circumstances of the case and evidence of witness that

                    complainant himself was an educated person whereas the vendor

                    respondent no. 2 was an old illiterate lady and taking the view

                    that victim vendor herself was an illiterate lady and hence the

                    allegation of cheating does not made out under the facts and

                    circumstances and hence exonerated the accused from the charge

                    and observe that he has not been examined and is serious

                    infirmity.5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

                    there   is   substance     of   cheating.     However    taking   into

                    consideration the submission going through the record and

                    further taking into consideration the facts and circumstances that

                    the vendor was an illiterate old lady and further there is no

                    allegation or evidence of any forgery as there is neither any

                    allegation of interpolation in the document nor impersonation.

                    Moreover, it is alleged that only the wrong plot no. has been

                    entered and moreover, it is a case for civil dispute and hence I do

                    not find any merit to disturb the finding recorded by the trial

                    court to interfere with the impugned judgment.6. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal and

                    hence the appeal is dismissed.Patna High Court,Patna                                       ( Gopal Prasad, J.)
Dated 04th July 2011
N.A.F.R/Devendra/