1. We agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. C. N. Mehta, both in his reasoning, and also in his conclusion upon the evidence adduced for the prosecution. He has concurred with both the asssessors. It maybe that the complainant's case was not exactly that which had been found proved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But a criminal Court is not bound by all the statements of the complainant. Its duty is to find out the truth in the midst of the conflicting evidence. It is urged, however, as to the document which has been found to be forged that the learned Judge has treated it as an acknowledgment which saves limitation, whereas in law it is more than an acknowledgment because its terms show that it is a contract within Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act and contains a promise to pay. The answer to that is very simple whatever its legal aspects may be. The question about the document is : How did the parties deal with it; how did the appellant deal with it and treat it in the civil suit for the purposes of his claim The record of the suit shows that the appellant himself regarded it, described it and relied upon it in his plaint and pleadings as a baki or acknowledgment. The cause of action stated in the plaint was alleged to have arisen in January 1901, the suit was brought in 1909, and this baki of the 13th December 1906, with another baki, were relied upon as saving the bar of limitation on the ground that they were bakis or acknowledgments or settlements of accounts. Therefore, the argument which is now urged before us is purely an after thought. We must confirm the convictions and sentence and dismiss the appeal.