. n33 ga? £3. we wig“ Vwiw%§ “r q£uwa§m a¢u g f a? Emag3 $33 2 i. £444 iaagwmx N$i .a! £3 g Qn$ $¢is Qu.§ ‘ , wamqa} _ “i wwaaqmagaaw 4x«.4. «q? ,_ awaai? “aawaag ._ A a£ yawway .36“ . . .?4 .a £ a : mad} 3 3a w%&4¢u?o L ars, resident of Kondagaon. Bhram, slo Cingdu, aged 22 years; resent of Kondagaon. Nandu, Slo ’Budhlal. aed 2 year, re d HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Comm: Hon’ble hri Dili Ra saheb hmukh and Hon’bieShri R.L.Jhanwar. JJ cr. A, No. $0M State of Madhya Ptadesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Versus ye oha slo humarlal Soni, aged 3O ud h id g 5 s sident of Konagaon (Adka Chhepdapara) Applloatlon for leave tg apeal unoer Section 378 (3i and Cnrmngl AgMl under Sectlog 378 (1 l against the [udgment of egulttal : Sud B D Govement Advocate or the Slat None for the respondent p ed ORAL n 3RD§ 20 (Pass o April, § 09) This peal is dircted against the judgment date 1.04.10 ap e d 199 assed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpr in Criminal Ca N. p u se o 404/1988 whereby the non-applicant No.1 Mohan was acquied 'of the chargefi under Section 392 of the i.P.C. 2. Leave to appeal was refused against non-applicants No.2 & 3 i.e. Budhram and Nandu, who were also acquitted of the"charge under Section 392 of the I P C 3. The prosecution story is that on 53 1992 at about 4 15 PM in Adka Chhepdapara Kondagaon the non-applicant No1 - Mohan took Jugdev from a fair (Mela) tohls house and snatched his gold chain. 0n a h 1 """‘3WW" _ »§.WWv w w. y ssrw gee w 2mg 4.... -w .. m x i1 Appellant Respondents Mn. J (Accused persons) Present Shn hlr ajpai y m f e s tt report being [odged, the gold chain was seized from Mohan. Prosecution was iaunched against him. 4. Non-applicant No.1 Mohan abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and ied no evidence in defence. The learned trial Judge finding the evidence insufficient acquided the non-applicant No.1. 5. Having heard learned Dy. Govemment Advocate for the State. we have perused the record of Criminal Case No. 404/1988. Jugdev’P.W.2 admitted in crossexamination that he does not remember as to who had snatched the golden chain from him. .Due to non-examination of the Police Ofhcer conducting the seizure, the factdm of seizure of the gold chain from non-appliant No.1 - Mohan could also not be established. So far as the identitication of the chain is concerned. Jugdev P.W.2 admitted in cross—examination that he had identitied the chain at the behest of the Head Constable. Piluram P.W.1 did not depose that the gold chain was seized from the non-applicant No.1 — Mohan. ‘ 6. in the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the acquittal of non-applicant No.1 -— Mohan of the charge under Section 392 of the l.P.C. 7. The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. ‘ i A v*a x Sdl- . ' 1‘ .Sdl- “Dilip Raosaheb Deshntukhl .; R.L. Jhanwar\ “’1 Judge s’,‘ w ‘ Jydge