Sections 406/419 // 420/468/471 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 417 (2A) Criminal breach of trust, Fraudulent by person, fraudulent and dishonest property, fraud For the purpose of forgery as an original counterfeit document, the complainant (the appellant) on the withdrawal of the benefit of the doubt, paid the accused an amount to buy the plot of land, after which the contract between the parties was canceled. And allegedly returned part of the payment to the complainant. The complainant alleged that despite the numerous demands, the accused did not return the money, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused and the accused after giving them the benefit of the doubt, any eyewitness to the legal complaint handed over the money. The question to the accused, whose presence the complainant handed over the money, was not clear. The complainant should have paid in the presence of the witnesses. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination. Does he mark his thumb on the back of the contract cancellation stamp paper Question That is, whether the complainant handed the money to the accused as security, the credibility did not prove that the prosecutor had failed to prove his case beyond any matter. In the shadow of doubt, the trial court acquitted the accused and the co-accused after giving them the benefit of the doubt, in which case the appeal against acquittal was dismissed.
