N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) This appeal by the complainant has been directed against the judgement and order dated 30.10.1979 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 1947 of 1974 acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 420/34 Indian Penal Code P.S. Bhelupur, Varanasi. The complaint by P.W.1 Nurul Hasan was filed on behalf of P.W.2 Sirajuddin with the allegations in brief that the respondents 1 to 3 represented to P.W.2 Sirajuddin that they are the joint owners of house No. B-17/6 in Mohalla Tilbhandeshwar and that they are willing to sell it. P.W.2 Sirajuddin who was in search of a house agreed upon to purchase it and advanced Rs. 1,000.00 towards the price therefor. An agreement of sale was arrived at between the parties on 5.5.1974. Respondent No.4 also assured P.W.2 Sirajudding about the ownership of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 of the house of respondents 1 to 3 and in token thereof signed the agreement of sale as a marginal witness. It was however subsequently found that the respondents 1 to 3 had already executed agreement of sale on 16.10.73 in favour of Mohd. Abdul Mohsen and had executed the sale deed in his favour. It was said that respondents 1 to 3 had no right left in the house in question but the respondents by making false representation cheated the complainant and deprived him of Rs.1,000.00. The contention of the respondents was that respondent No.3 Smt. Amna Bibi had obtained a decree of Rs.1,000.00 against her nephew Ghulam Sabir. He paid a sum of Rs.1,000.00 out of Court in satisfaction of that decree and obtained the signature of the respondents on a blank stamped paper and then the complainant forged the agreement of sale in question in order to deprive the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 of the house in question. The copy of the decree was filed in defence. The contention of the respondents found favour with the trial court with the result that the complainant was dismissed and respondents acquitted. The appellant then obtained leave to appeal and then filed the appeal in this court. None appeared on behalf of the parties on the date fixed for arguments. I have heard the learned A.G.A. and have perused the record. In an appeal filed against the judgement of acquittal the scope of interference is limited. The appellate Court cannot interfere in the order of acquittal by making reappraisal of evidence. If two views of the evidence are possible then the view taken by the trial Court is to be preferred. It had the added advantage of noticing the demeanour of witnesses. Unless the judgement suffers from manifest illegality or the view of the evidence taken by it can be characterised as perverse or illegal, the appellate Court would not interfere in the judgement of acquittal. The agreement of sale was unregistered. The trial Court has pointed out that P.W.2 Sirajudding got another agreement of sale of Rs.300/- executed and also got it registered but no reason is forthcoming as to why the agreement in question was not registered. Undisputably Smt. Amna Bibi had obtained a decree of Rs.1,100.00 against Ghulam Sabir. The consideration of the evidence by the trial court in the light of the above two circumstances cannot be said to be perverse or manifestly illegal. The appellant himself no longer appears to be interested in the matter. For the reasons given above I find no force in this appeal which is dismissed . Appeal Dismissed.;