Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba in File No.18/Session a case titled "State v Daljeet Singh and another? whereby the trial court has discharged respondent No.1-accused (Daljeet Singh) from the offences under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471 RPC leveled against him.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned order has challenged the same in the instant criminal revision on the following grounds:

(i) That the order is against the provisions of law and facts. So the same is not sustainable.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution which fully inspired that the respondents have committed the offence. The Hon'ble Court has not fully appreciated the evidence and brushed aside the evidence thereby discharging respondent No.1 from the charges under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471 RPC while from the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly envisaged that the offence has been committed and the respondents have intentionally and deliberately committed the fraud by obtaining loan in the name of the petitioner and impersonated by putting forged signatures on the loan papers. So the order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

(iii) That the Hon'ble Court has not appreciated the documents, copy of the Challan and the statement of witnesses, which clearly envisaged that the offences under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471 RPC have been committed by respondent No.1. The Hon'ble Court has discharged respondent No.1 without appreciating the evidence recoded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. All the witnesses deposed that respondent No.1 has given file of loan to respondent No.2 when it is clear from the statement of witnesses that the petitioner never visited the bank for obtaining any loan while there is procedure for obtaining loan. The person, who has to obtain loan, put his/her signatures on the documents so prepared in presence of the concerned Bank staff member and also has to complete all the formalities for obtaining such loan. The petitioner never went to the Bank for obtaining the said loan which is clear from the statement of the witnesses, who are the bank employees. The Hon'ble Court without appreciating all this, has discharged the accused at the stage of framing of charge itself without conducting any trial in the case. So the order is not sustainable.

(iv) That the Hon'ble Court has not appreciated the FSL report while it is clear from the FSL report that the signatures on the loan documents are of the respondent No.1 and not of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Court has not made any mention of FSL report in the judgment and discharged respondent No.1 without appreciating the evidence recorded by the witnesses while it is clear from the statement of witnesses that respondent No.1 gave the loan file to respondent No.2 who has managed to prepare false and forged documents fraudulently. The Hon'ble Court without appreciating the evidence, discharged the respondents No.1 of the charges for the commission of offences under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471 RPC. So the order is not sustainable.

(v) That the Hon'ble Court has not appreciated the statement of the petitioner and her parents that earlier, faced with the situation that the petitioner has not obtained any 1aon the Bank, approached the Manager of the Bank, who issued NOC to the effect that the petitioner has not obtained any kind of loan from the Bank. On what basis the Bank has issued recovery notice when the Bank has already issued NOC in favour of the petitioner and this has been proved by the witnesses. The Hon'ble Court without appreciating the record and the evidence recorded by the witnesses, discharged respondent No.1. So the order is not sustainable.

(vi) That the Hon'ble Court has properly appreciated the ingredients of Section 419 RPC-Punishment for cheating by personation-Whoever che