Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur (for short, "the trial Court") in Criminal Original Case No. 414/2003, State of Rajasthan vs. Paveen Mehta, whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent No. 2 of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 379 and in the alternate Section 411 IPC. The State has not preferred an appeal against the impugned order of acquittal; however, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the Judgment and order impugned passed by the trial Court. 3. PW. 9 petitioner Kamal Kishore is the complainant. The complainant, in his report, has stated that one Ram Raj Soni committed theft of shares and debentures which were in the name of his mother Smt. Raj Kanwar Taparia PW. 6. PW. 6 Smt. Raj Kanwar Taparia stated in her statement that she was informed by her son Kamal Kishore that her ten shares, which were sent by a registered post, had been stolen. She stated that she was also informed by her son that respondent No. 2 has stolen the registry contained the shares. Petitioner-complainant PW. 9 has stated that the occurrence took place in the year, 1992 whereas PW. 6 Smt. Raj Kanwar Taparia, the mother of the complainant-petitioner in whose favour alleged shares stood, has stated that the occurrence took place in the year, 1994. In the report Ex. P/23, the theft alleged to have been committed by Ram Raj Soni whereas subsequently, he was produced as prosecution witness No. 8. There are material contradictions in the statement of these two material witnesses. 4. Apart from the material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, PW. 7 Awatar Singh, the Circle Inspector, stated that he has taken specimen signatures of the accused and handed over the same to PW. 10 Chandan Singh, whereas PW.. 10 Chandan Singh did not say so. So far as forwarding of the documents to the State Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh has stated that the documents were forwarded on 11.1994 whereas PW. 2 Virendra Singh, who prepared the documents, stated that the documents were handed over to PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh on 11.1994. 10 Chandan Singh did not say so. So far as forwarding of the documents to the State Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh has stated that the documents were forwarded on 11.1994 whereas PW. 2 Virendra Singh, who prepared the documents, stated that the documents were handed over to PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh on 11.1994. There are contradictions in the statement of PW. 2 Virendra Singh and PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh with regarding to preparing and handing over the documents for sending the same to the FSL. The examination-in-chief of PW. 2 Virendra Singh was recorded; however, he did not appear for cross-examination. Material witness Megh Singh has neither been produced by the prosecution nor examined by the trial Court. The trial Court found the material discrepancies in the prosecution case and the contradictions on material point and came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondent No. 2 and according, respondent No. 2 was acquitted. This revision is against the order of acquittal by the complainant. On close scrutiny of the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondent No. 2. There is no evidence worth reliance, even if the evidence is re-appreciated, for order the retrial. On a revision by the complainant, the order of acquittal cannot be converted into that of conviction in view of the provision of Section 401 CrPC. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly.