- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. List has been revised.
(2.) SRI Vidhan Chand Rai, brief holder of SRI Rajesh Tandon, appears and states that SRI Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the revisionist, is busy elsewhere. It is no ground for passing over the case. The record shows that the orders of the Court dated 17-8-88, 13-2-89 and 22-11-95 have not been complied with inasmuch as certified copy of the summoning order passed by the Magistrate has not been filed despite sufficient time being granted to the revisionist. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for the opposite parties and A. G. A. although State has not been im-pleaded as necessary party to the revision. From the perusal of the order of the revisional court it appears that the facts were that complainant, Zahir Uddin, revisionist in the present case, is co-sharer. He claims l/6th share in the land in question along with opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 who also have l/6th share each. The complaint allegations appear to be that the opposite parties sold land in excess of their share. The Magistrate has summoned the opposite parties under Sections 420 and 468, I. P. C. The revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the opposite parties on the ground that there was no misrepresentation to the complaint and he was not made a party with any property. The revisional Court also held that there was no allegation of forgery in the complaint.
(3.) IN my view the judgment and order passed by the revisional court does not call For any interference as the court below has rightly held that from the allegations no offence is made out Hence, rejected. Revision dismissed .;