JUDGMENT : C.P Case No. 616 of 2001 was instituted by Ramjee Singh Yadav on an allegation that his full brother Shivjanam Yadav posing himself as Ramjee Singh secured employment with M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, BCCL) and thereby caused financial losses to him. 2. The complainant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 28th November 2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2012 by which the learned Appellate Court has set-aside the judgment of conviction of O.P No. 2 on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence after delay of 28 years. 3. This criminal revision petition was filed on 24th February 2015 and notice was issued to O.P No. 2 by an order dated 6th November 2017. 4. O.P No. 2 put his appearance on 5th January 2018 through Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel. 5. On 18th October 2021, Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel, appeared for O.P No. 2 but thereafter he stopped appearing for O.P No. 2. 6. No one appears for O.P No. 2. 7. This Court takes notice of conduct of a counsel who after filing Vakalatnama stops appearing in the matter without offering any explanation to the Court for his reluctance/inability to appear in the matter, but, for this reason, I am not inclined to adjourn hearing of this criminal revision petition. 8. With the assistance of Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned APP, I have gone through the records of the case. 9. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that bar under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C) is not absolute and in appropriate cases the Court of the first instance can condone the delay in view of the provisions under section 473 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would further submit that knowledge about fraud played by the brother of the petitioner came to his knowledge in the year 2000 and from such date the complaint was within 3 years. 10. In C.P Case No. 616 of 2001, the complainant examined four witnesses – he has examined himself as CW4. Jainandan Mallah was an independent witness who was examined in the trial as CW2 but he was not produced for cross-examination and, therefore, his examination-in-chief was rightly not considered by the learned trial Magistrate. 10. In C.P Case No. 616 of 2001, the complainant examined four witnesses – he has examined himself as CW4. Jainandan Mallah was an independent witness who was examined in the trial as CW2 but he was not produced for cross-examination and, therefore, his examination-in-chief was rightly not considered by the learned trial Magistrate. The complainant, his younger brother and son tendered evidence in the Court that Shivjanam Yadav who is the third brother of the complainant in the line of succession posed himself as Ramjee Singh and secured employment under BCCL in the year 1973. The complainant has produced his own identity card, residential certificate, character certificate and a copy of voter list for village Chandaur to show that he is the son of Muneshwar Singh Yadav. 11. O.P No. 2 has examined an employee of Bank of India, Tetulmari and laid in evidence relevant pages of loan register as well as application form no. 96 to show that Ramjee Singh Yadav is none else but Ramjeet Yadav who is full brother of the accused. The elder brother of the accused and his son also came in the dock to testify that the accused has five brothers including himself, namely, Ramchandra Yadav, Ramjeet Yadav, Ramjee Singh, Kapildeo Yadav and Panchratan Yadav. They have stated that the said Ramjee Singh Yadav was never an employee under BCCL whereas the accused was working for the last 32 to 34 years. O.P No. 2 has produced voter I.D card, duplicate I.D card, affidavit of Muneshwar Singh and voter I.D card of Harendra Kumar Yadav to establish his identity as Ramjee Singh. 12. The learned trial Magistrate has held that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant is Ramjeet Yadav who took loan from Bank of India rather it is established that the complainant is Ramjee Singh Yadav. From the materials on record, I gather that the complainant failed to establish that O.P No. 2 impersonated himself in place of the complainant and secured employment under BCCL. The documents produced by O.P No. 2 particularly the records from Bank of India which should be held correctly prepared under clause (e) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be brushed aside on the basis of oral evidence. The documents produced by O.P No. 2 particularly the records from Bank of India which should be held correctly prepared under clause (e) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be brushed aside on the basis of oral evidence. The recital in a document would get precedence over oral testimony of a witness unless it is proved that the document was prepared in a fraudulent manner. The defence has produced substantial evidence to show that Ramjee Singh was employed under BCCL for the last more than 32 years. No complaint was made against him all these years and statement of the complainant that he came to know about employment of O.P No. 2 in the year 2000 cannot be believed. Furthermore, the complainant has admitted that on a complaint made by him the accused was put under suspension but subsequently reinstated in service. It appears that the allegation of impersonation was not found true by BCCL. The learned Appellate Court has rightly held that no cognizance of the offence could have been taken by the learned Magistrate on a complaint which was filed after a delay of about 28 years. The bar under section 468 Cr.P.C is not in absolute terms, but then, for exercising powers under section 473 Cr.P.C the Court is required to record its satisfaction that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the delay in filing the case was properly explained and it is necessary in the interests of justice to condone the delay. No such finding was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and it is unimaginable that in a case of the nature like this even delay of 28 years can be explained. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, finding no merit in this criminal revision petition, is dismissed. 14. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.