JUDGMENT 1. - This application for leave to appeal under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant has been directed against the order of acquittal dated 6.4.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in a case under sections 494 & 494/109 IPC. 2. The relevant facts are that Kamla, complainant-petitioner was married to Nand Ram, respondent No. 1. Husband and wife lived together for some time and even they got an issue. However, soon trouble started in the matrimonial relations and Kamla went to her father's house. She filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate alleging that her husband Nand Ram has married again with Sharda on 5.5.1993. On this complaint after enquiry was held, cognizance was taken. On the appearance of the accused respondent charges were framed against them under sections 494 & 494/109 IPC. They pleaded not guilty. The complainant entered into the witness box and examined PW 2 Rajendra and PW 3 Dhanraj. In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-respondents denied accusation. The learned Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties held that the charges against the accused-respondents were not proved. He, therefore, acquitted them. 3. Mr. Dhillon contends that the trial Court has rejected the testimony of Rajendra without sufficient reasons and this Court should reverse the finding and remand the case to the trial Court. 4. I have gone through the statement of Rajendra who is none else than the cousin of Kamla. He wants the Court to believe that he had gone to the 'Dhani' where the marriage ceremony of Nand Ram with Sharda had taken place. The conduct of the witness had been most unnatural. He neither took steps to prevent the second marriage of his brother-in-law nor did he care to take his brother-in-law and father-in-law or other members to witness the marriage. He also did not care to report about the marriage immediately to his cousin-sister. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has commented upon the conduct of this witness and has refused to rely on his testimony. I do not find any cause to differ with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. The judgment of the trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of evidence and even two views are not possible on the evidence produced in the case. I do not find any cause to differ with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. The judgment of the trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of evidence and even two views are not possible on the evidence produced in the case. It cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are manifestly erroneous or wholly unsustainable. No case of grant of leave is made out. The application for leave is rejected.Leave to appeal rejected. *******