Maqbool Ahmad, respondent, was tried under section 420, P.P.C. On the charge that in the year 1983, he received Rs.14,000 from Ibrahim petitioner/complainant, with the promise that he would get the land returned to him. He neither got the land returned to him nor did he returned the money to him. The trial Court convicted him under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two years and 9 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.4,000 or in default thereof three months' R.I. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed appeal against conviction and Ibrahim, petitioner/complainant, filed revision for the enhancement of sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, vide his judgment dated 10-9-1987, acquitted the respondent/accused and dismissed the revision of the complainant. Hence this revision by the complainant for setting aside the order for acquittal of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt; that the learned Appellate Court has not given any sound and cogent reason for setting aside the judgment of conviction and that the case was not of the civil nature. Learned counsel for the State has supported the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the learned appellate Court has applied its conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has acquitted the respondent for the reasons that there was a delay of two years in making report against the respondent; that the complainant has been changing his version from time to time; that the respondent being a canal Patwari was not in a position to get the mutation sanctioned or land returned to the complainant; that the allegations that the respondent received money with promise that he will get the land back to the complainant, do not constitute cheating as defined in section 415, P.P.C. And that the case seems to be of civil nature. The aforesaid reasons given by the learned appellate Court find support from the evidence on record. On my independent assessm ent, I feel that the failure on the part of the petitioner to get the land back to the complainant or to return the amount which he (the petitioner) had' received with the promise to get the land returned to him does not fall within the' purview of section 420, P.P.C. The judgment of acquittal of respondent No.1 is neither perverse nor illegal. It is well-settled that once an accused person is acquitted of the charge by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and cogent grounds would be required for interference with the same, which I do not see in the case in hand.
3. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.