Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.@mdashNone turns up on behalf of the revisionist, even in the third time revised call, while perusal of the order sheet shows that revisionist''s counsel kept on seeking time for last so many dates. At one time on 26.07.2011, the counsel on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 was also present, but today none turns up, hence, this Court has gone through the grounds of revision and the judgment impugned as well as heard the learned Brief Holder for the State.
2. By way of this revision, judgment and order dated 08.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1311 of 1996 titled as ''Smt. Beena Devi v. Kamlakar Tripathi and Vimla Tripathi'' has been challenged. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 Kamlakar Tripathi and Vimla Tripathi were tried by the Judicial Magistrate with the allegations that the accused persons executed a sale deed dated 28.12.1989 of some agricultural land for consideration of Rs. 1,08,750/- in favour of husband of complainant (Smt. Beena Devi). Smt. Beena Devi, later on, could trace that the land, in question, belonged to someone else and it was a sheer conspiracy on the part of the opposite party in executing the questioned sale deed. The subject matter of the sale deed ''a plot of land'' was put into possession of husband of Smt. Beena Devi named Shankar Singh. When the case was tried, the learned Magistrate found that there was No. cheating at all on the part of Kamlakar Tripathi and his wife; they were real owners of the land in question and there was No. deception on their part, which was allegedly made to Shankar Singh, with these findings both the accused Kamlakar Tripathi and Vimla Tripathi were acquitted. Having gone through the grounds of the Revision, it is noticed that these are all stereotyped. None of the grounds indicates that in what manner this judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and in what way, it is unwarranted and illegal, as has been stated in the revision.
3. It has been alleged that learned Magistrate did not take into account the documentary evidence like sale deed while this is against the findings entailed in the judgment impugned. Learned Magistrate has well considered the documentary evidence which is mainly the sale deed, in question. The signatures upon the sale deed has been got verified by the handwriting expert. Another ground, that No. opportunity of cross examining PW2 Ranjeet Singh was given u/s 246 Code of Criminal Procedure, is not a ground which can be taken by Smt. Beena Devi in her defence because PW2 Ranjeet Singh was the witness of Smt. Beena Devi herself and he had to be cross examined by the accused persons. Moreover, he has been well cross examined, as is evident on a perusal of report.
4. This way, this revision is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
