( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of a complainant who alleged that he had been cheated out of Rs. 5500/ -. He gave evidence but the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused saying that although the evidence showed a different state of things the complainant was not allowed to give such evidence because of Section 92 Evidence Act. What happened was that at the time of this contract an offer was made which is Ex. 1 which, begins with saying: "we have the pleasure in advising you that the undermentioned goods are available as per details given hereunder" and one of the details of the offer was "ex godown of principal as per availability. " It is definitely written there: "all offers are subject to prior sale etc. " There can be no doubt on the part of any person reading the document that it contained an offer by the firm Valcan and Co. (Agency) to Messrs. B. S. Madhukar. The evidence that was sought to be given, and the learned Magistrate says himself that the oral evidence is to this effect, that when the contract was accepted and the price of Rs. 5500/- paid there was fresh contract namely that delivery was to be immediately made. Section 92, Evidence Ac