ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is seeking grant of special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 6th September, 2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 517 of 2010/T.R. No. 1564 of 2017, whereby the sole accused/opposite party no. 2 herein has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 448/465 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Complainant inter alia alleged as follows: Complainant was the President of Millat Academy High School, Jharia while the accused was also resident of Jharia. Accused had been terminated by the Academy for his illegal acts and causing disturbance to the peace and tranquility in the school premises with an intention to commit forgery by inserting his signature in valuable documents such as attendance register of school by force and by terror. It is further alleged that on 4th March, 2010, he illegally entered into the school premises at about 10:30 and forcefully obtained the admission register of the school and put his signature therein after writing his name. This was an intentional act to commit cheating and forgery without consent of school authority. Headmaster In-charge of Millat Academy High School, Jharia made a written complaint to the Secretary on 5th March, 2010 about his illegal acts. A legal notice dated 8th March, 2010 was dispatched to him on 10th March, 2010 by registered post, but he failed to make any response. He had earlier been appointed illegally by the previous Managing Committee, but his appointment was rejected by Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand through notification no. 3303 dated 13th July, 2002. As a result, his services were terminated vide letter dated 25th November, 2005 by the then Managing Committee. Writ Petition being W.P.(S) No. 581 of 2010 was filed by Millat Academy High School, Jharia through its President Sajid Hussain/complainant which was still sub judice before Jharkhand High Court. It is further alleged that the accused being a teacher terminated from service had intentionally made his signature in attendance register to create a false evidence in his favour. This forgery was committed to create a document for the purpose of cheating. Besides that he administered serious threats to the Secretary and President of Academy on 20th March, 2010. It is further alleged that the accused being a teacher terminated from service had intentionally made his signature in attendance register to create a false evidence in his favour. This forgery was committed to create a document for the purpose of cheating. Besides that he administered serious threats to the Secretary and President of Academy on 20th March, 2010. Since, local police station did not offer proper response on being reported, the instant complaint was filed. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad after inquiry and solemn affirmation summoned the accused, who, on his appearance was explained the accusation of charge under Section 448/465 of Indian Penal Code in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by order dated 14th December, 2010. 5. Complainant examined three witnesses in his support. He also exhibited the following documents: “Ext.- 1- Letter No. 25/11/2005 (with objection of the defence) Ext.-2- Letter dated 05/03/2010 (with objection of the defence) Mark- X the Legal Notice dated 08/03/2010” 6. Statement of the accused was taken thereafter under Section 313 Cr. P. C on 20th April, 2016. Defence also produced one witness in his support. 7. C.W.-1-complainant, Md. Shamim Akhtar, C.W.2- Md. Afzal Ansari and C.W.3- Md. Sajid Hussain all deposed in support of complainant’s case and exhibited the aforesaid documents. 8. Defence also examined himself as D.W.-1. He was also cross-examined. Defence adduced the following documents: “Ext-A to A/30-U.P.C, dated 14/06/10, 17/06/10, 29/06/2010, 03/07/10, 20/07/10, 31/07/10, 07/08/10, 14/08/10, 21/08/10, 31/08/10, 07/09/10, 25/09/10, 04/10/10, 14/10/10, 24/10/10, 01/11/10, 08/11/10, 16/11/10, 09/12/10, 11/12/10, 16/12/10, 08/01/10, 24/12/10, 17/11/12, 27/11/11, 07/02/11, 16/02/2010, 25/02/11 and 12/04/10. The Ext.-A/31-U.P.C Dated 21/06/10, The Ext-B to B/72- Carbon Copy of attendance with U.P.C The Ext-C- Letter dated 22/08/2009, The Ext.-D-Carbon copy of letter dated 19/08/2009 The Ext-E-Carbon copy of application dt. 02/08/2009, The Ext-F-Carbon copy of application dt. 05/06/2009 The Ext.-G- Carbon copy of application dt. 17/11/2009. Mark-X- Xerox copy of letter received from Secretary Letter No. 12/13-01-101/2007.” 9. The Ext.-A/31-U.P.C Dated 21/06/10, The Ext-B to B/72- Carbon Copy of attendance with U.P.C The Ext-C- Letter dated 22/08/2009, The Ext.-D-Carbon copy of letter dated 19/08/2009 The Ext-E-Carbon copy of application dt. 02/08/2009, The Ext-F-Carbon copy of application dt. 05/06/2009 The Ext.-G- Carbon copy of application dt. 17/11/2009. Mark-X- Xerox copy of letter received from Secretary Letter No. 12/13-01-101/2007.” 9. Learned trial court discussed the evidence on record in the light of the allegations made by the complainant and came to the following considered finding: (i) The allegation of intentionally inserting his name and signature in the attendance register of school on 4th March, 2010 by the accused were not established by the complainant as the alleged attendance register had not been produced or exhibited by the complainant, (ii) Complainant had, in his statement, also made reference to an earlier incidence where the accused had committed the same offence and fled away with the school register, which was recovered from him and returned to the school by the police, However, it was surprising that even in such circumstances no case was registered by the police against the accused, (iii) There were about 1800 students and 40-45 teachers in the school, but none of the school teachers or students were examined by the complainant to corroborate his case. C.W.-1, C.W.-2 and C.W.-3 were admittedly Clerk, Incharge Headmaster and President of the school as such no independent witness was examined to corroborate the case. (iv) Complainant in his evidence at Para-52 admitted that by letter no. 182 dated 17th January, 2009, appointment of Principal, teachers were approved which letter also contained the name of the accused and one Md. Mustaque and that even thereafter the accused had been restrained from making his attendance at the school. Complainant, in his statement, at para-53 also stated that prior to the said approval, appointment of the accused had been terminated by Joint Secretary through letter no. 182 dated 17th January, 2009 but that was not served on the accused. (v) Though the complaint petition asserted that appointment of the main accused was rejected vide notification no. 3303 dated 13th July, 2002 by the Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, but no such documents were exhibited by the complainant. 182 dated 17th January, 2009 but that was not served on the accused. (v) Though the complaint petition asserted that appointment of the main accused was rejected vide notification no. 3303 dated 13th July, 2002 by the Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, but no such documents were exhibited by the complainant. Therefore, learned trial court on perusal of the documents exhibited observed that by letter dated 17th November, 2009, appointment of the accused by letter no. 182 dated 17th January, 2009 had been approved. 10. Learned trial court therefore came to a finding that in the absence of alleged school attendance register, the main allegation of forgery by the accused were not substantiated. No explanation was given for non-production of the alleged register by the complainant-C.W.-3. Ingredient of Sections 463 and 465 of Indian Penal Code were also discussed by learned trial court and a finding was arrived in favour of accused. So far as charge under Section 442 of Indian Penal Code and the punishment provided under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned trial court also took note of the evidence and the material exhibits, more specifically Ext.-C letter dated 22nd August, 2009 issued by Principal of school, C.W.-1 where he had expressed his regret towards the delay in releasing of salary of the accused. It therefore amounted to an admission that the accused was the teacher of Millat Academy School and there existed some dispute between the Management Committee and the accused with regard to his appointment. Based on these material evidence on record, learned trial court came to the opinion that entry of the accused in the school campus on 4th February, 2010 and 20th March, 2010 could not constitute the offence of criminal trespass as defined in Sections 441 and 442 of Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code. As such the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. The accused was accordingly acquitted of the charges. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured to question the finding of learned trial court on a number of grounds. However, he has failed to improve the case of the complainant/petitioner on any of the findings recorded by learned trial court both in respect of evidence in relation to charge under Sections 465 and 448 of Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured to question the finding of learned trial court on a number of grounds. However, he has failed to improve the case of the complainant/petitioner on any of the findings recorded by learned trial court both in respect of evidence in relation to charge under Sections 465 and 448 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has not been able to show that when the complainant and his witnesses failed to produce the very school attendance register in which the alleged act of forcible entry was made by the accused, how could the charge of forgery be established. Learned counsel has also not been able to overcome the material findings on the question of the appointment of the petitioner, which as per the statement of the complainant himself at paras-52 and 53 of deposition and through letter dated 17th January, 2009 showed that the accused was the teacher of Millat Academy High School. Learned trial court in such circumstances had observed that there was some dispute between the Managing Committee of the school and him. In such circumstances, the findings of learned trial court cannot be dislodged. 12. We, therefore, do not find any grounds to grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.