U.S. Tripathi, J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2342001 passed by Sri S.M. Sharma, Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Kanpur Nagar acquitting the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 from the charges under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(l)(x) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AG A and perused the record.
3. The applicant Ramdeen who is a member of a scheduled caste lodged report on 721994 at P.S. Kalyanpur, district Kanpur Nagar against the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 who were officers of a bank with the allegation that he had applied for loan of Rs. 50,000 and opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 demanded 10% commission which he refused to pay. Therefore, they avoided payment under the pretext of nonreceipt of budget. He filed complaint to this effect to the Government and high officers and the matter was being enquired into by the police. On 2791993 at about 9.00 a.m. the applicant had gone to Kalyanpur and when he reached in front of Common Doll School the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 pressuriseded him to withdraw the complaint against them and on his refusal they caused injuries to him with intent to humiliate knowing that he was amember of S.C.
4. The matter was investigated and police submitted chargesheet against the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(l)(x) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
5. The defence version was that the applicanthad previously takenloan from the Bank of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and had not paid the loan. The previous loan was outstanding and therefore, they did not recommend fresh loan due to which applicant was annoyed and initiated a false case.
6. During trial the prosecution examined Ramdeen (PW1), Sipahi Lal (PW2) and Jaggnath (PW3).
7. Learned Magistrate found that Jaggnath (PW3) has not supported the prosecution story and stated that no such occurrence took place in his presence. Sipahi Lal (PW2) was friend and associate of applicant. That the occurrence took place on 2791993 and report was lodged after 41/2 months i.e. on 721994. There was no proof of any inj ury on the person of applicant and therefore, evidence of the applicant and his close associate Sipahi Lal (PW2) was not believable. With these findings the trial Court acquitted the opposite parties 2 and 3.
8. Aggrieved with the above judgment and order of acquittal the applicant has filed this revision.
9. Having perused the record I find that there is no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Admittedly the occurrence took place on 2791993 but the report was lodged after 41/2 months i.e. 721994. The applicant is literate person and resident of city. No explanation was offered to explain as to why the report was lodged as such delay.
10. The Trial Court found that the applicant had previously taken loan and had not paid the same and pressurised the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to sanction fresh loan. There were also no injury on person of applicant and it appears that deliberately the occurrence was concocted of 41/2 months before the lodging of report so that the absence of injury could be explained.
11. There were material infirmities and discrepancies in the case of prosecution. The trial Court had recorded findings of fact for appreciation of evidence. No illegality or irregularity could be shown in the order of Trial Court. Therefore, there is no ground to interferon with the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
12. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed.
