IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.973 of 2008. Dated of Decision: November 19, 2008. State of H.P. …..… Petitioner. Versus Manoj Kumar alias Mani Ram. ………. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Heard. I have gone through the record of the learned trial court. The respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial court, on the ground that the prosecution could not substantiate its charge. Kuldeep Kumar (PW1), Roshan Lal (PW2), Gian Chand (PW3) and Dev Raj (PW6), who were the occupants of the vehicle, did not support the case of the prosecution. According to them, the tyre of the vehicle had burst, which caused the accident. In this case the main ingredients of the offences aforesaid that the respondent ------------------------------------ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 was driving the vehicle in question rashly and negligently are missing. In absence of it, the respondent cannot be convicted. Since there is no legal evidence against the respondent, adduced on the record, therefore, leave to appeal is refused. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. November 19, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.