The applicant has filed this revision to question the order passed in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1969, by which respondent No. 1 was acquitted of the charge under section 420, P. P. C. The State has not preferred an appeal and the applicant has therefore, come up to this Court to challenge the acquittal. A complaint was filed on 16th of August 1967, by the applicant in which it was alleged that respondent No. 1 had executed an agreement dated the 6th of April 1967 to sell 25 acres of land, situated in Deh Belawah, to him and that he had paid to him Rs. 25,000 in cash, as part payment of the sale price of ' Rs. 75,000. The land according to the applicant was agreed to be sold at Rs. 3,000.
Per acre. The agreement was written by one Haidayat Ullah but the amount was paid in cash before Ghulam Ali, petition-writer who was then busy and had directed Haidayat Ullah to write out the agreement, and it was then taken before Mr. Massu Khan, who read out the contents of the agreement to respondent No. 1 and he thereupon showed to him the money he had received from the applicant and admitted the contents of the document and put his thumb-mark on it. It was alleged by the applicant that thereafter, respondent No. 1 refused to execute the sale deed on his intimation to do so as he had arranged for the balance of the price, and it later transpired that out of 25 acres of land, 8 acres and 24 ghuntas was already sold to Sattar and Iqbal. According to the applicant, this fact was not known to him when the agreement for sale was executed and if he had known it he would-not have entered into it with respondent No. I and he was thus cheated.
2. Respondent No. 1 having come to know about the filing of the complaint, filed an application (Exh.
11) before the Magistrate and took up the stand that he was only paid Rs. 200 and if he was paid Rs.
75,000 he would execute the sale deed. The case was committed for trial to the Court of Session and at the trial the prosecution examined Jan Muhammad, Ghulam Ali and Massu Khan. Each of them supported the case of payment of Rs. 25,000 to respondent No. 1 and the execution of the agreement. Respondent No. 1, however denied the allegation of cheating and stated that he was still in possession of 18 acres 25 ghuntas of land and in a position to transfer it at any time. The vendees of 8 acres and 25 ghuntas of land were his own grandsons, Sattar and lqbal and upon the death of their father, it was by way of family arrangement that he had transferred this land to them so that their uncle should not deprive them of their shares. He denied having received Rs. 25,000 and again reiterated that he was willing to carry out his part of the contract if the full amount is paid to him. He examined Sattar in defence, who supported his case and further stated that no consideration was paid for the land sold to them and that he and his brother had authorised him to sell their shares in the land.
3. The trial Court after reviewing the evidence held that Rs. 25,000 was not paid in cash as alleged; and accordingly this stand of applicant is not sustainable. It has given cogent reasons for reaching this conclusion and the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show as to how this conclusion of toe trial Court is not justified from the material on the record.
In this connection it would be pertinent to reproduce the observations of the trial Court "In my opinion the complainant never had Rs 50,000 to pay to the accused. He never maintained a bank account. He says that Rs. 25,000 had come out of the money he had in his house and the balance of Rs. 50,000 would also have come out of the same board. It is inconceivable that in these days of enlightenment a sum of Rs. 75,000 would be kept at home at the mercy of thieves and dacoits and not deposited m any bank to earn interest. It appears that the boot is on the other foot.
It is the accused who is being subjected to deception and cheating and. Not the other way round. It -is purely a civil matter which has been given a twist so that it may be converted into a criminal case and the fear of the criminal process may be brought to bear on the mind of the accused and thus he may be compelled to effect transfer of his land for a sum of money less than what it deserves."
This view was possible upon the material on record and there is no reason for me to disagree with it.
4. The trial Court also held that the document was not read over to respondent No. 1 as there was nothing in the docu--ment itself to indicate to the effect. Besides, he was an illiterate person and belonged to Punjab and could not have understood the language of the document which was in Sindhi unless the contents were explained to him. It was for this reason that he did not attach any significance to the acknowledgement in the document of the receipt of Rs. 25,000. In this context he has not accepted the supporting evidence of Ghulam Ali and Massu Khan also for substantial reasons. The learned counsel for the applicant has not disputed the appraisal of their evidence and has not advanced any argument to impress on me that their evidence was rejected for inadequate reasons. The defence witness namely, Sattar has supported the stand of respondent No. 1. He is one of the two vendees to whom 8 acres and 24 ghuntas of land was sold and according to his testimony, respondent No. 1 had control of his share and that of the other vendee in the land and he was authorised to sell it on their behalf. The applicant also failed to show in the context of the defence) evidence that there was any impediment in the way of the transfer of the land to him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for cogent reasons, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of cheating and accordingly acquitted him. In the absence of any reason to hold that this view of the trial Court was not possible upon the evidence led at the trial, I would not set aside the order of acquittal of respondent No. 1 and under the circumstances 1 see no merit in the revision and it is accordingly summarily dismissed.