Judgment O.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. THIS appeal has been filed by Amir Singh complainant against the judgment and order dated 6-1.0-1970 passed by the Munsif/Magistrate First Class, Muzaffarnagar acquitting the respondents for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPG, 2. THERE is no dispute that plot no. 785/2 of village Amir Nagar P. S. Titavi District Muzaffarnagar originally belonged to Habib Ahmad. He sold the said plot to Subhash Chandra, Smt. Prem Lata and Om Prakash, respondent nos. 2 to 4, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently the said plot was sold by respondent nos. 2 to 4 in favour of complaisant Amir Singh on 25-4-1969 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Subsequently the complainant came to know that the said land was mortgaged to Bhoomi Nibandhak Tatha Vikas Bank, Muzaffarnagar. The said Bank took steps for sale of the property and the complainant had to pay Rs. 9562/- to the Bank. The complainant then filed the present complaint alleging that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Baijnath (Tahsildar), who was husband of respondent no. 2, had full knowledge of the fact that the property was encumbered with the said Bank but still they defrauded the complainant by selling the same in his favour without disclosing the fact that the property was already encumbered with the Bank. All the accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they had sold the property in favour of the complainant in the same manner in which the same had been purchased by them. 3. IN support of his case, the complainant examined himself (PW 1), Purna (PW 2) and Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Field Officer of the aforesaid Bank as PW 3. The accused persons did not adduce any evidence. 4. THE learned Magistrate having acquitted the respondents, the present appeal has been filed by Amir Singh complainant, So far as respondent no. 1 Hamid is concerned, he died during the pendency of this appeal and consequently the appeal against him has abated. Even otherwise, there was no case against him because the main allegations made by the complainant were directed against respondent nos. 2 to 5. 5. HAVING heard the learned counsel far both the parties and having carefully gone through the record I find there is no merit in this appeal. 6. Even otherwise, there was no case against him because the main allegations made by the complainant were directed against respondent nos. 2 to 5. 5. HAVING heard the learned counsel far both the parties and having carefully gone through the record I find there is no merit in this appeal. 6. THERE is no tangible evidence on the record to show that the respondents knew that this property was already mortgaged with the Bank and that they had deliberately concealed this fad from the complainant at the time of selling the property in his favour and thereby defrauded him. The original sale deed dated 25-11-1967 executed by Habib Ahmad to respondent nos. 2 to 4 is on the record. THERE is nothing in the sale deed to show that the property was mortgaged with the Bank. On the other hand, there is recital in this sale deed that the property was free from all encumbrances. THERE is also nothing on the record to show that the respondents had knowledge that Habib Ahmad had already mortgaged this property in favour of the Bank. In his own statement complainant Amir Singh did not say anything to indicate that the fact regarding the property having been mortgaged with the Bank was known to respondent nos. 2 to 5. PW 2 Purna made a bald statement that about ten years back (that is some time in the year 1967) he had gone to the Bank and saw Habib Ahmad and Tahsildar, respondent no. 5. taking some loan from the Bank. It was hardly possible to place any reliance on the oral testimony of this witness. He had no concern either with Habib Ahmad or respondent no. 5 and his bald statement that he saw Habib Ahmad and Tahsildar with money in their hands does not lead us anywhere. Moreover, PW 3 Ramesh Chandra Sharma, who is Field Officer of the said Bank, merely stated that the property had been mortgaged with the Bank by Habib Ahmad but does not say that the respondent nos. 2 to 5 had any concern with that transaction. The probability that respondent nos. 2 to 5 had no knowledge of the fact that this property had been mortgaged by Habib Ahmad with the Bank cannot be ruled out. Moreover, in absence of any cogent evidence to show that respondent nos. 2 to 5 had any concern with that transaction. The probability that respondent nos. 2 to 5 had no knowledge of the fact that this property had been mortgaged by Habib Ahmad with the Bank cannot be ruled out. Moreover, in absence of any cogent evidence to show that respondent nos. 2 to 5 had knowledge of the said mortgage, they cannot be said to have cheated or defrauded the complainant. As already mentioned above, there was no mention about the said mortgage in the sale-deed executed by Habib Ahmad in favour of the respondents. As such the respondents cannot be said to have committed any offence and they were rightly acquitted. In the result this appeal has no merit and the same is. hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.