The main legal point established was the requirement of evidence to prove charges under the Indian Penal Code and the consideration of civil disputes in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. The revisional application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah in connection with G.R. Case No. 1336 of 2002, corresponding to T.R. No. 192 of 2002 under Sections 420/468/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused person from the charges levelled against them.

2. The records of the case reflect that the defacto complainant preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah being Case No. 1015C of 2002. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the said complaint preferred by the defacto complainant directed the Officer-in-Charge, Howrah Police Station to investigate the case and as a result of which, Howrah Police Station Case No. 107 of 2002 dated 13th August, 2002 was registered for investigation under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the case was subsequently numbered as GR Case No. 1336 of 2002 and in course of trial the case was renumbered as T.R. Case No. 192 of 2002.

3. The prosecution case in short is that, the defacto complainant purchased 1 cottah 8 chittacks 54 feet in length and 20 feet in width a plot of land from the accused namely, Subhendu Neogi of 43/2, Kamini School Lane, Salkia, Howrah. The said land was registered by way of a deed of sale bearing No. 2382 of 1998 executed on 22nd July, 1998.

4. It was alleged that the accused again on 2nd February, 2000 sold another portion of land within the same holding No. 20, Benaras Road to one Bateswar Rajak and Kapil Rajak including a considerable portion of the complainant's purchased property showing the same as common passage. It was further alleged the accused person on 29th November, 2000 dishonestly and deliberately with an intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant executed another deed of sale in favour of one Deepika Manna in respect of another portion of the holding No. 20, Benaras Road together with a portion of the complainant's land. Thus the complainant felt that he was cheated as the accused by executing several sale deeds to different persons in respect of the self-same land deprived the complainant and caused wrongful loss to him even after accepting the consideration money.

5. The Investigating Officer of the case on completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the FIR named accused person for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said police Report, the Court after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pleased to frame charge against the accused person under Sections 468/471/420/467 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were thereafter read over to the accused person who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including the defacto complainant and the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas the defence examined none.

6. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses were over the learned Court fixed date for examination of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on completion of the same, fixed date for arguments of the case, as the defence refused to tender any witness in support of its case. On completion of final arguments of the case and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Court by a judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 was pleased to acquit the accused person from the charges levelled against him.

7. The learned Trial Court observed that the prosecution by way of documentary evidence relied upon the petition of complaint (Exbt.1), Deed No. 1013/2000 (Exbt.2), Deed No. 6246/2000 (Exbt.3), formal FIR (Exbt.4), sketch map of the place of occurrence (Exbt.5) and Deed No. 2382/1998 (Exbt.6).

8. The learned Trial Court took into account the argument