JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-Initially acquittal of the respondents was assailed by filing the Criminal Revision Petition No.13 of 2009 by the appellant who later realized that the judgment impugned is appeal-able, thus he moved Cr.M.P. No.253 of 2009 for converting the revision petition into appeal as per provisions of Section 401 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was allowed. The leave to appeal was granted to him and the record of the learned trial Court was requisitioned. 2. The matter, as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, was finally heard at the stage of admission. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant was defamed by the respondents by making representations and complaints addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Human Rights Commission and also uttered defamatory words like “GUNDA BADMASH”, thus sought their prosecution under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After the complete trial, the learned trial Court found that no such complaint or any application or representation was proved on record and also noticed material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the uttering of alleged defamatory words, thus ultimately acquitted the respondents. 5. I have gone through the evidence on record and I do not find that any such complaint which was allegedly sent to the higher authorities, was placed or proved on record. There are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the place regarding making such utterances. The certificate Ext.CW-3/A issued by Smt. Sunita Devi (CW-3), Pradhan is also bias and actuated with malice. The complainant is her brother-in-law. She admitted that a civil suit was also filed by the respondents against the complainant. Thus, I find that the reasons of acquittal are borne out from the record. There is no perversity in the findings of the learned trial Court, as such, the appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.