Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.132 of 2009. Dated of Decision: April 29, 2009. State of Himachal Pradesh …..… Petitioner. Versus Rajiv Kumar. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/-, for allegedly committing theft of Rs.1,00,000/- from the shop of the complainant. The conviction and sentence was assailed in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge while accepting his appeal on 3.11.2008, the appellant was acquitted, which has been challenged by the State. Record of the trial court was requisitioned and perused. Heard. 2 As a matter of fact, in the instant case there was no eye witness. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the extra judicial confession made in the Agreement Ex.PW1/A, wherein there is a reference of commission of alleged offence and also a promise to refund the money by the respondent before 27th January, 2003 and this undertaking was guaranteed by the father of the respondent Shri Mathra Dass. It was also agreed that in case the amount is not returned, the complainant would be at liberty to take an appropriate action in accordance with law. On the perusal of the agreement aforesaid, it transpires that the complainant wanted to serve twin object by getting it executed by the respondent, one to fix the respondent with the alleged theft for which no evidence was adduced on the record and secondly, he wanted to ensure the recovery of his money. The circumstances on record show that it was not a voluntarily confession, with respect to the theft of the alleged amount and the respondent was only a suspect, as he was stated to have been found absconding immediately after the complainant noticed that the amount from his drawer was missing. The other evidence on record including the recovery does not show 3 that it was the theft amount which was utilized by him as alleged. The circumstantial evidence on record does not connect the respondent with the offence alleged. The above points were also noted by the learned appellate court below in detail in its judgment while recording the findings of acquittal, which are borne out from the evidence on record. The case at best is of a civil nature and criminal offence is not made out. I do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal, thus refused. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. Send down the records. April 29, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.