mutated in his name. The appellant was not aware of the aforesaid facts and has paid Rupees One Crore and Ten Lakh for the property in question which was agreed to be sold on payment of a consideration of Rs. One Crore Seventy Lakh. After coming to know about the fraud played by Sanad Kumar, he held the rest of the amount i.e. Rupees Sixty Lakh, for which a cheque had already been given to Sanad Kumar, which was dishonoured and Sanad Kumar has instituted a case against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the appellant has no role to play in forging the documents and he is owner and bonafide purchaser of the property in question. The aforesaid fact is clear from the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Panna Lal wherein he has not said anything against the appellant. The contradiction in the version of the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that the appellant is in no way connected with the fraud played by Sanad Kumar. He further submits that the property in question was purchased by the appellant together with Jagat Prakash Shukla and for the said fraud played by Sanad Kumar, a first information report has already been lodged against him by Jagat Prakash Shukla. Insofar as the caste indicative words used by the appellant, as alleged in the FIR, his presence in itself is doubtful at the place of occurrence where such words are said to have been used. Even otherwise, the caste indicative words are not specifically enumerated, therefore, offence under the relevant Section is not made out.
