Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.2.2010 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.19, Deoria, in Criminal Complaint No.1514/2009 (Smt.Ramawati vs Smt.Gyanti Devi and others). The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 24 days. On the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the notices were issued. Counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State and accused respondent nos.1 to 4 on 23.11.2010 and on that date ten days' time was allowed for filing rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter the case listed on 3.1.2011, 17.1.2011, 9.2.2011, 22.2.2011, 8.3.2011 and 15.3.2011. The time was allowed for filing rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter the case was called out in the revised list on 15.3.2011, however, the counsel for the applicant was absent, hence the order was passed to list this case peremptorily in the next cause list. Till date no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The explanation regarding the delay is that counsel had informed that the limitation for filing the appeal against acquittal was 90 days and further there was shortage of fund, hence the appeal could not be filed within the time. When the applicant/appellant reached at Allahabad for filing the appeal on 28.4.2010 then she was informed by her counsel that limitation for filing the appeal against the acquittal was 60 days. Thereafter the appeal was drafted and the same was filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported with an affidavit. The appeal was filed on 1.5.2010 and the limitation was only upto to 7.4.2010, hence the delay has not properly been explained. However, the lenient view may be taken for condonation of the delay since the delay was only 24 days, if there is any merit for interference in the judgement and order of acquittal. According to the allegation by the complainant, the land in question belonged to her mother Poorni who was owner of the Araji No.173/244 and 304/83 having half share of the said land. Since she was patient of cancer, hence she was not in a position to move and inter into conversation. However, the accused respondents committed forgery and by producing another lady in place of her mother got forged sale deed prepared on 21.4.1987. Subsequently her mother died on 3.5.1987. Since she was patient of cancer, hence she was not in a position to move and inter into conversation. However, the accused respondents committed forgery and by producing another lady in place of her mother got forged sale deed prepared on 21.4.1987. Subsequently her mother died on 3.5.1987. The complaint was made to the Police Station Deoria. However, the same was not registered. Thereafter an application was given to S.P. Deoria and when no action was taken then the complaint was filed. The statements were recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the proceeding was initiated under Sections 419, 420, 471, 467, 461 I.P.C. The accused respondents were summoned under Sections 467, 109 I.P.C. In the statement of complainant before the Court at one place it was stated on behalf of the complainant that Poorni expired on 3.5.1987 and at other place it was stated that she expired on 7.5.1987, hence she was not sure regarding date of death, but it is admitted that she expired after execution of sale deed in question which was executed on 21.4.1987. According to her case, her mother has only two daughter, complainant appellant and her sister Kalawati w/o Haider. However, her sister was not examined before the Court in support of the complaint case. The complainant failed to prove that the sale deed was not executed by Poorni rather another lady appeared on her behalf and executed sale deed. The conduct of the witnesses Ramchander, Ram Narain and Nathuni were unnatural. They have stated that they had seen the preparation of the sale deed and presence of the accused respondents. However, at that time Poorni was not present rather another lady was present there. Since there was doubt, hence PW-3 Nathuni was asked about the deed but they have not replied. However,the witnesses have not informed the aforesaid incident on the same or or next day. The complainant came to know regarding the execution of forged deed on 24.5.1987 after death of her mother. Photocopy of her mother was not produced before the Court though she has stated that the photograph of her mother was available with her and that was at house otherwise the photograph might have been got compared by the Photograph of that lady who had executed the sale deed. Photocopy of her mother was not produced before the Court though she has stated that the photograph of her mother was available with her and that was at house otherwise the photograph might have been got compared by the Photograph of that lady who had executed the sale deed. The proceeding was already been pending for cancellation of the sale deed and it has been mentioned by the trial court that till that date the sale deed had not been canceled. She also did not try to get the thumb impression compared through expert. In view of the fact and circumstances, the trial court found that the complainant failed to prove her case. Accordingly the accused opposite parties were acquitted. It is well settled that if two views are possible then no interference is called in the judgment and order of acquittal when one of the view was taken by the trial court. In the present case one of the views taken by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or against the evidence on record. The counsel for the complainant could not point out that the view taken by the trial court is against the evidence on record. Since even on merit no interference is required, hence, the application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 10 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Ramawati Respondent :- Smt. Gyanti Devi & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Upendra Misra Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Aalok Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Amar Saran,J. Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Since the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected, hence this application for leave to appeal is rejected. Order Date :- 31.3.2011