JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. IN this appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal procedure, the State has assailed the judgment dated 29.10.2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan, District Solan, H.P in Criminal Complaint No. 54/S/2 of 2000/1996 titled as State of H.P versus Sunder & others, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code. 2. RAKSHA Devi, during the pendency of proceedings filed an application under Section 408 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In response thereto, the present accused filed reply, duly supported by their individual affidavits. According to State, in the application, accused made following averments:- "That para 2 of the application as alleged are emphatically and categorically denied. One poor and scheduled caste person namely Shri Jagat Ram was a tenant in possession of the petitioners land earlier whose entries had been struck off by the husband of the petitioner who was Halqua Patwari in the area and thereafter forcibly he had been turned out from the village by the petitioner and her family members. Since then the petitioner and her husband are residing in the village and harassing and pressurizing the other villagers to exchange their land abutting to Solan-Rajgarh Road with petitioner land situated in far flung area of the village by way of filing the false and baseless litigation. The respondents have nothing to do with the petitioner or any other persons nor their land situated in the village. Thus the question of harassing etc as alleged does not arise and the same is emphatically denied." 3. IT is argued that averments to the effect that entries were got struck off under the influence of husband of original petitioner, who was acting as Halqua Patwari, are false and accused, on oath have made a false declaration. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that appeal only merits rejection. According to Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the complainant, entries were changed, pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1983, passed by Sr. Sub Judge, Solan in Civil Suit No. 80/1 of 1978 titled as Jagat Ram versus Ram Rattan & others and not by way of exercise of any undue influence. According to Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the complainant, entries were changed, pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1983, passed by Sr. Sub Judge, Solan in Civil Suit No. 80/1 of 1978 titled as Jagat Ram versus Ram Rattan & others and not by way of exercise of any undue influence. Significantly, the judgment and decree was not proved, in accordance with law by the complaint. That apart, I find that averment as reproduced herein cannot be said to be false. All that the complainant has stated is that entries were struck off. It cannot be denied that husband of the petitioner was in fact Halqua Patwari at the relevant time. As such, I find no merit in the present appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. THE accused persons have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the trial Court. Keeping in view the ration of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back.