( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the complainant against an appellate order of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge 24 Parganas, reversing the conviction under Section 420, Penal Code and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-of the accused opposite party passed by a Magistrate, first class, Sealdah.

( 2 ) IT is said by the complainant that on the basis of what he alleges to be a bogus order, the accused obtained a large sum of money from the complainant and gave him a false cheque which was dishonoured. The Magistrate convicted the accused. On appeal the Sessions Judge proceeded to exclude a large part of the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses believed by the trial Court, under Section 92, Evidence Act. It is regrettable that sessions Judges are for-getting even the Indian Evidence Act. The complainant and his witness said that the accused held out that the complainant was going to make the supplies as the sub-contractor of the accused. In the document Ex. 2 the word "sub-contractor" does not appear. The learned Sessions Judge is not clear whether the document is a finally concluded agreement or some provisiona