c IH IBE HIGB GOURT OF JUDIC^TURS AT JABALP Q^-rs-^? Mxsc.Gri.ease Cri.appeal No /2000 /2000 > &PPL1CWS APPELLA'T t. State o-C Madhya Pradesh througnS.H.O., P.S.City Kotwali, Bilaspur* 1^7. w/',-. ^ . f' ^NON-APaiCAi'rs sLaebhu @ Laxaan S/o Late Motuaal Siadhi, VERSUS RESPONQSNTS aged about 55 years, B/o Subhas Nagar, Qand para, P.3., Gify KotKali, Bilaspur. APPLICATIOB FOR GRANT OF LBAVE 10 APPEA U/S578(lii) CRIMTHAL HtOGEDU5E CDDE/APFEAL U/S578(i) Cr.P.I?. HI6H COURT OF CHHATraSS^RH AT SiASWS Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Cr.M.P. No. 549 of 2010 APPELL^r'xT RESPON&ENT State of AAadhya Pradesh Versus Lachhu @ Laxman Shri Praveen &as, Dy. 0A for the appellant/State. Shri Rajneesh Shrivastava, counset for the respondent. APPUMTION FOR 6RANT OF L6AVE TO /(PPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378 (3) OF THE CO&E OF <»IMIN-4LPROCE&URE JU&6EMENT (31.03.2011) This appeal is d'rected against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.1999 ^Qssed by Judiciaj Magistrate First Ciass, iiiaspur in Criminoi Case No. 524/1997 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 4 A of the Pubiic ffambiinq Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.8.1997 upon receiving secreat information, police party headed by Sub Inspector T.S. Sharma mad®G raid at Karona Square, Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur and found the respondent./accused inyolved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 4-A of the Public Gambting Act. After enquiry, F.I.R. (Ex.P-5) was registered on 12.9.1997 against the respondent/accused. 4. Report of District <& Sessions Judge, Biiaspur, dated 09.03.2011 shows that the records of the courts below were destroyed on 19.6.2002 i.e. after expiry of statutory period prescribed for destruction. ..^ss! /^ ~"\ f S .^SSi^.t g In view of this fact, this Court' is proceeding with the case on the basis of documents as filed by the State counse! and the documents which are in possession of the part'ies. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the respondent/accused the prosecution has examined two witnesses namely AAadan (PW-1) cmd R.N. Tripathi (PW-2) in supporr of its case and one witness namely &.&. Ahuja (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support ot its case. 4. By the Judgment impugned the court below has acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 4-A of the Public (Sainbiing Act. Hence this appeat. 5. Counsej for the State/appetlant submits that the court- beiow has erred in law in disbetieving the prosecuton case. t-ie submits that the learned trial Court has not correctly apprecicrted the evidence available on record. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the judgment under chailenge being strictly in accordance with law is just and proper and does not suffer from oiny iliegality or infirmity. 7. I have heard counsel for the part-ies and perused the material availabie on record inciuding jud9ment impugned. 8. From the evidence of Madan (PW-1), it is apporent that he has failed to adduce the evidence in respect of the ssizure of Rs. 20,000/- whereas the statement of one of the impori-ant witness of seizure namety Ramesh has not been recorded and thus it is difficult to hold that fts.20,000/- was found from the possession of the accused/respondent. Trial Court has furt-her held that Madan (PW-1)- <^!»5&'rf panch witness has stated that he has signed the seizure memo in the police stotion. The tria! Couri- has furl-her found that the statements of the witnesses are contradictory to each other ar'd th.ey have given different stories. 8. After due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Court belouv has arrived at the condusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonabte doubts, the respondent/accused was entitled for acquittai. 9. After h.earing counsel for the appetlant and considering the materiat avaitable on record as well as the elaborat'e judgment impugned and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taken one view favoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissibje in law and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the Judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 4 A of the Public ©ambling Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. ^ 1"'\ Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge