Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, is directed against the Judgment and order dated 12.05.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in criminal case No. 292/2003 whereby the trial Court acquitted respondent No. Shankar Lal of the offences under Sections 420 and 465, IPC. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the petitioner complainant has filed the instant revision petition, which is barred by period of limitation of 76 days. Before the trial Court, it was the State case. However, the State has neither filed any leave to appeal nor appeal before this Court against the Judgment and order of acquittal impugned. 2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the petitioner. The only ground for seeking condonation of delay is that the petitioner could not know the decision of the trial Court. In the very para of the application, it has been stated that the petitioner has got information from his Advocate that respondent No. 2 was acquitted by the concerned Court. The stand taken by the petitioner runs contrary to his own assertion in the application. If the petitioner was informed by his Counsel that respondent No. 2 was acquitted by the Court, then who prevented the petitioner to file the revision petition within the period of limitation. Thus, the petitioner failed to show the sufficient cause, which prevented him to file the revision petition within a period of limitation. 3. Even on merit, the petitioner has no case. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the Judgment and order impugned. 5. The sale deed was executed by the petitioner and one Lachhi Ram in favour of respondent No. 2 Shanker Lal. The petitioner himself appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 30.08.1996, which is evident from the sale-deed executed in favour of respondent No. 2. It appears from perusal of the sale-deed that the sale-deed was presented by petitioner Pratap son of Udaji and before Sub-Registrar, the petitioner admitted having received a sum of Rs. 13,000/-for sale consideration and thereafter the document was registered. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has failed to produce material witnesses before whom it is alleged that respondent No. 2 agreed to re-transfer the land in favour of petitioner, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 13,000/-for sale consideration and thereafter the document was registered. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has failed to produce material witnesses before whom it is alleged that respondent No. 2 agreed to re-transfer the land in favour of petitioner, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Even the investigating officer was not produced. The case set up by the prosecution was that respondent No. 2 agreed to re-transfer the land in favour of the petitioner in presence of Khemaji, Bheru, Unkarji, Shankerlal, Ex-Sarpanch Laxmilal Patel but none of these witnesses was produced before the trial Court as a prosecution witness. 6. The trial Court, finding the various discrepancies in the prosecution case, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence of cheating by the petitioner with fraudulent intention. The essential ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, were not established from the prosecution evidence. There is no forgery of the documents. The document sale-deed was duly registered by the Sub-Registrar Office and, therefore, the trial Court held that there arises no question of forging of a document. In the circumstances, therefore, even on merit, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction by a private party. 7. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the revision petition stand dismissed.