ORAL JUDGMENT None turned up on repeated calls. It is needless to appoint Amicus curiae. 2. Heard Shri S.N. Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013(2) PLJR 276 (SC). It is thought proper to hear learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and to examine the record and Lower Court Records and decide the appeal on its own merit. 4. This an appeal preferred against order of acquittal in Complaint Case No. 422C/1999, Trial No. 330/2003 dated 15th February 2003 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, acquitting the solitary accused respondent no. 2 on the charges under section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Undisputedly, one Complaint Case was filed by the appellant against his brother respondent no. 2 alleging purchasing of a Tractor on obtaining loan from Allahabad Bank in joint name of mother of the parties and there was a family agreement to have proper account of the income coming from the use of said Tractor and deposit of loan amount from there etc. but respondent accused did not complied terms and conditions. Hence, after the death of mother there was also agreement in panchayat to pay of the loan amount by the respondent and pay a meagre sum to the complainant which also could not be done. 6. Defence has totally denied the allegations. During trial altogether six witnesses besides three documentary evidences were produced but neither any oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the defence. On consideration of all such materials trial court has rightly considered non production of any document showing any agreement between the parties before alleged purchase of Tractor or purchase of the same in name of respondent and his mother or obtaining any loan and statement of Bank account etc. The trial court has also considered denial of defence. The document relating to panchnama (Exhibit-2) whereon L.T.I. of respondent no. 2 said to be surfaced, but in face of consistent denial no attempt was made by the prosecution to get the same compared or establish being of the respondent. 7. Thus, there appears no error in the finding of the court below. Hence, finding no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.