JUDGEMENT 1. This L.P.A. was heard at the stage of admission. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 08.04.2010 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saran at Chapra as passed in Complaint Case no. C-1710/98 in Tr. No. 154/2010 whereby the accused/O.P.s nos. 2 to 5 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 423/34 I.P.C. have been acquitted of the charge. 2. The case of the petitioner/ complainant Mojar Mahto was that he had purchased the land as detailed in the complaint petition through registered sale deed from one Nokha Mahto and thereafter got the land mutated in his name and he was also paying rent and obtaining rent receipt for the same. Complainant further stated that he constructed three rooms in a portion of the land and he was living in his house. It was alleged that O.P. no. 2 Deonath Mahto who happens to be the son-in-law. Petitioner/complainant got a forged sale deed executed by way of standing any imposter in the name of the petitioner/complainant Mojar Mahto in Registry Office and O.P. No. 3 Suresh Ram and O.P. No. 4 Parmu Rai identified the imposter as Mojar Mahto by putting their signatures as identifying witnesses on the sale deed and the O.P. No.5 Pramod Kumar was scribe of the sale deed said to have been executed by the imposter executor. 3. In order to substantiate his case the complainant examined three witnesses namely P.W. 1,2 and 3 but none of them was an eye witnesses and their evidence as adduced before the trial Court as hearsay witnesses stated that they learnt in the village that the O.P. No. 2 to 5 have got the forged sale deed executed through an imposter in the name of Mojar Mahto. The complainant examined himself as P.W. 4 but he too was not an eye witness and he also adduced hearsay evidence putting allegations on the O.P.s as leveled of the complaint petition. The complainant examined himself as P.W. 4 but he too was not an eye witness and he also adduced hearsay evidence putting allegations on the O.P.s as leveled of the complaint petition. Besides this the complaint also tried to prove the L.T.I, and tried to get compared the L.T.I, of his own with the L.T.I, on the allegedly forged sale deed but the expert who had examined the L.T.I, and who was examined as P.W. blurred 4 stated that he was unable to give any opinion due to the reason that the L.T.I, on the sale deed was blurred and comparison of the same with the L.T.I, of the petitioner/ complainant was not possible hence any opinion could not be given and thus the petitioner/complainant failed to establish that the L.T.I, on the alleged forged deed was not of the petitioner/complainant and that it was of anybody else. Besides these facts petitioner/complainant also did not take any effort to prove the signatures of the two identifying witnesses namely O.P.s Suresh Ram and Parmu Rai on the alleged forged sale deed proved by way of getting the same compared with the signatures of these two persons. 4. In the light of consideration to these facts and circumstances the learned trial court came to a finding that the complainant was not able to prove the charge and he could not substantiate the case of prosecution, therefore, O.P. no.s 2 to 5 were acquitted of the charge. In view of what has been considered by the learned trial court I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by it. In the result, finding no merit this application is dismissed at the admission stage itself.