Judgment AJAI LAMBA, J. 1. The criminal appeal has been filed alongwith an application praying for leave to appeal against acquittal under Sec.378 (4) Cr. P. C. It transpires that vide judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka dated 26.07.2008, the respondents have been acquitted. The core of the issue before the Trial Court was forgery of documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an inquiry was conducted by Inspector enforcement whereupon, it was found that the documents were forged. In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court that there is no evidence of forgery is not substantiated. Learned counsel has further argued that the inquiry report has been ignored by the Trial Court on the ground that the inquiry was one sided and the accused had not been heard before giving the inquiry report. This is factually incorrect as the accused had been given opportunity of being heard. 2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. Relevant discussion in the impugned judgment is contained in para no.11. The respondents have been acquitted by the Trial Court on the following grounds:- (a) Only handwriting and finger print expert could show by way of giving cogent reasons that the documents were forged. On perusal of the alleged receipt, it could not be concluded that the documents were forged. Handwriting and finger print expert had not been examined. (b) From Exhibits DX and DY i. e. copies of judgments produced on behalf of the respondents, it become apparent that the complainant and accused are inimical. (c ) There are improvements in the examination-in-chief of the complainant. (d) Perusal of judgment dated 05.08.2006 passed by Civil Judge, junior Division, Fazilka reveals that no finding has been recorded in regard to forgery of the documents. (e) The complainant in his cross-examination admitted that except to his counsel, he did not give signatures on blank papers to any other person. In such circumstances, it was highly improbable that the complainant, who was inimical towards the accused, would hand over blank signed papers to the accused. 3. Considering the above, it has been concluded that the complainant had failed to establish that the accused committed forgery of the alleged receipt and clearance certificate. 4. I find that the findings have been recorded while taking into account relevant facts and circumstances. 5. 3. Considering the above, it has been concluded that the complainant had failed to establish that the accused committed forgery of the alleged receipt and clearance certificate. 4. I find that the findings have been recorded while taking into account relevant facts and circumstances. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any document or material that was relevant which, however, had not been taken into account. The inquiry report per se would not constitute evidence of forgery of a document in the face of admitted position that handwriting expert had not been examined to prove or disprove forgery. Even if the inquiry officer had heard the accused before giving his statement, the conclusion drawn during inquiry by the Inspector Enforcement would not per se be sufficient to hold a document as forged. The evidence led in Court is relevant for recording conviction or acquittal. The enquiry report cannot substitute the evidence. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are correct and legally tenable. No ground for interference in the limited jurisdiction of appeal against acquittal is made out.