ORDER Shukla, J.--1. Submissions were made on the application filed under section 378(3) of CrPC seeking leave to appeal, challenging the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani on 16.11.2018 passed in S.T. No.17/2013, whereby the nonapplicant/accused Gopal has been acquitted from the charges framed under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story in short was that non-applicant/accused Gopal had sold a plot 4152 sq.ft. situated in village Segaon Survey Nos.113/5, 113/6, 113/7, 113/8, 113/9, 113/10, 113/11, 113/12, 113/13 and 113/14 total area of 2.15 acres to one Dilip whereas, the land was Nazjul land belonging to the State Government. 3. The defence of the non-applicant was that he was not having knowledge that the land was a government property. He submits that this land was included in 1986 in the Municipal Corporation, Barwani and in the municipal corporation register, there is no mention of survey number etc., that on this land, a house had existed which was in the name of father of the non-applicant and therefore, he, assuming that he was the rightful owner of the land had entered into transaction with Dilip regarding sale of disputed plot. He further submits that proceedings under section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code was carried out by the Registrar regarding the land. 4. Had any such proceedings been instituted, the accused would have come to realise that this was the Nazul land. These are the factors which went into acquittal of the non-applicant/accused Gopal. 5. Submissions were considered and original record of the case was perused. 6. Apart from the above-mentioned facts, hand-writing expert's report was also not exhibited and witness was not examined and this fact also resulted into acquittal. 7. After perusal of the original record of the case and after consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned by learned trial Court are adequate while pronouncing the judgment of acquittal. No malafides are perceptible against the non-applicant/accused and there is no material to conclude that the non-applicant/accused intentionally cheated Dilip and fabricated false documents. Consequently, no leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal can be granted in this matter. The application filed under section 378(3) of CrPC stands dismissed.