JUDGMENT : HARI PAL VERMA, J. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the present criminal revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 48 days in filing the present petition is condoned. Main Case Petitioner, namely, Surjit Singh Sandhu has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby his appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, was dismissed. Vide judgment dated 29.11.2011, leaned Magistrate while extending benefit of doubt to respondent-accused Mohinder Singh acquitted him of the charge levelled against him. The judgment of acquittal was passed in FIR No. 189 dated 26.9.2006 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. Briefly stated, the respondent-accused executed a sale deed dated 23.1.2004 of his land situated at village Sahnewal in favour of the petitioner. He received the entire sale consideration. However, he again executed another sale deed of the same land on 28.4.2006 in favour of M/s. Akme Project Limited. On completion of investigation, the Challan was presented against the respondent-accused and copies as required under Section 207 Cr. PC were supplied to him. Finding a prima-facie case, charge under Section 420 IPC was framed against the respondent-accused to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2011 acquitted the respondent-accused by observing as under:- “18. After hearing both the counsel for the parties and going through the file, this Court has observed that the prosecution has levelled allegations against accused that he has sold the property to complainant Surjit Singh and thereafter he again sold the property to M/s. Akme Project Ltd. 26A, Mohan Co. Operative Indl. Estate. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. In order to prove this, it is duty of the prosecution to prove on record both the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by accused in favour of two different persons, but the prosecution has merely brought on record only one sale deed which is in favour of complainant Surjit Singh. Thereafter evidence of prosecution was closed by order. Thereafter the learned APP for the State has moved an application under Section 311 Cr. Thereafter evidence of prosecution was closed by order. Thereafter the learned APP for the State has moved an application under Section 311 Cr. PC which was allowed but even after allowing the said application the prosecution has not brought on record second sale deed and they have merely brought on record mutation which was effected on the said sale deed through PW6 Ranjit Singh Patwari. But this Court is of the opinion that mere coming on record of mutation does not prove the fact that sale deed was executed by present accused. Unless and until, the signature of accused are proved on the second sale deed, the accused cannot be held to be guilty of offence levelled against him. It cannot be presumed from the mutation that sale deed was executed by accused in favour of M/s. Akme Project Ltd. 26A, Mohan Cooperative Inds. Estate in whose favour the mutation has been sanctioned. The most important document in order to prove the allegations was the second sale deed but the same has not been brought on record and in the absence of the same, accused cannot be convicted. After considering everything on record, this Court has observed that the prosecution could not bring on record sufficient material which could warrant the conviction of the accused.” Aggrieved against the said judgment of acquittal, the State as well as the petitioner preferred their respective appeals. However, the same were dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 29.10.2014. The allegation against the respondent-accused is that after executing sale deed in favour of the petitioner, he further sold the same land to M/s. Akme Project Limited and therefore, committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. However, while dismissing the appeals, learned appellate Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and others Versus State of Bihar and another bearing Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2009, decided on September 04, 2009, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:- “When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.” Perusal of the records reveals that there is no allegation against the respondent-accused that he deceived the petitioner in any manner by making false or misleading representation at the time of execution of sale deed dated 23.1.2004. In order to hold the accused guilty under Section 420 IPC, the dishonest intention should be established. The second sale deed dated 28.4.2006 was executed in favour of M/s. Akme Project Limited and, therefore, the allegation Section 420 IPC, if any, was to be made by the subsequent purchaser. As such, there is no illegality in the judgments passed by learned Courts below as the act of respondent-accused Mohinder Singh does not fall within the ambit of Section 420 IPC. In view of the above, the judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed by learned Magistrate as well as judgment dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned appellate Court are affirmed and the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.