IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Leave to Government Appeal No. 39 of 2010 in Government Appeal No. 26 of 2010 State of Uttarakhand ……Applicant/Appellant Versus Kamal and another .…Respondents Sri K.C. Agarwal, learned A.G.A. with Sri B.S. Parihar, Brief holder for the State/ appellant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Sri K.C. Agarwal, learned A.G.A. with Sri B.S. Parihar, Brief holder, present for the State/appellant. Heard. This appeal, preferred under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is directed against judgment and order dated 18.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Hardwar, in Sessions Trial No.230 of 2005 whereby the present respondents Kamal and Pawan are acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under sections 302/34, 201/34, 302/120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 404, 380 and 411 of I.P.C. Perusal of the impugned order shows that it was a case of circumstantial evidence, in which chain of circumstances was found complete as against accused Raju @ Rajkumar and Sonu @ Manish Kumar, who were convicted by the trial 2 court. But the chain of circumstances was found incomplete against present respondents Kamal and Pawan against whom the only allegation was that the Investigation Officer recovered one cheque book from each one of the said respondents. There was no other link evidence as against present respondents. In these circumstances, the trial court found that as against present two respondents Kamal and Pawan charges were not found proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the State/appellant and after going through the impugned order, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal prayed by the appellant. The Leave is refused. Appeal stands dismissed in summarily as against present respondents Kamal and Pawan. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) JKJ 25.08.2010