JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J(Oral).:-The acquittal of the respondent under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed in this appeal filed by the complainant. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The basis for initiating the proceedings against the respondent-accused is the complaint (Ext.CW1/A) which is alleged to have been signed by Chanchal Singh. The respondent has denied his signature thereon and no attempt was made by the complainant to prove the signatures and authorship of the complaint alleged to have been filed by the respondent. The complainant as well as the accused both are the real brothers. It is pertinent to note that neither the complainant in his statement recorded before the learned trial Court stated that the signatures on Ext.CW/1/A aforesaid are that of the respondent nor any attempt was made to prove it by any other legal mode. 4. The learned trial Court had also tried to compared the disputed signatures of the respondent with the signature on the summons as well as on his statement recorded in the Court, but at all the three places these signatures were found different. The Registrar of the University was not examined, as to who had presented the complaint to him. 5. Therefore, in these circumstances when the signatures and authorship of the alleged complaint made to the Registrar, H.P. University against the complaint has not been established then in my opinion, no case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent is made out. Thus the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent taking into notice all these facts which are borne out from the record and there is no scope for any interference by this Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.