m3uas‘i woman m ?/’ J’W K ‘ W f% ma W § , 9E1? mI r WW 37833§ HIGHOURT C OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I . 4 , Division Benchu ,,, , Coram ft; ' ' ‘Ho'n’bie ShriDilip Rao$§iieb Deghmukh and -Hon’ble‘Shri Rai‘eshwaLLaiJhanwar. .‘M ” rimlnal Appeal No.446 of 199 C 0 State of Madhya Pradash App'licant Ap;$ella’nt i p Res§b5dent Aééusé ‘ i Application for grant of leave to appeal under Sectian 378(3) of cr P C and Criminal Appeal agamst ludqment of aoqmttal undgr Section 378(1) 9f Ci; P Q Preéenl Sim Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/state None for the respondent VBfSUS G; S. Samuel, S/o S~.w Samue _ Christiari, Aged 34 years, Residen ofJabaipur.‘ - L l i v ORALJUDGMENTW (Delivered on this 22"“ day of/Apn, 2009 g jg The‘ followin udment was» delivered ~by Dilip Raosaheb i i i De ‘hmukh, J.: l Shri Bhaskar Payashi, leared Panel Lawer for the appellantlStale was‘, heard. l This is a slate appeal against acuittal-of the responden from the»: q t a chairge under‘rSection 409 of l.P.C. ,vlde judgment dated¢08-09-1989 i (2) j delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Clss, Jegdalpunin Crimina a l». Case No.71 2/1 98 I i i r i hows that the correct address’of the respondent is not known. i i i i ‘i-x The appeal is ening sinc 1990. Order sheet dated 30-08-2005 pd e n e v y l t ,a, d & i ‘ l i «V n y 8. ~ s ,zP (4) - Brief fact are that before 17-02-1981 the raspondent was the» v store keeper In N M D C at Bachelr He had received through an Indent~ four bundles of copper wire weighing about 28 KG and valued at R535OOI- On 17-02-1981 the respondent was travellmg by Bus from x t Bacheli to Raipur During surpnse check the C l S F guard asked the. respondent to open the box kept over the earner of the Bus. The~ respondent fled. The box was found to:contaln 28 K.G. oftcopper wire and 4 a clotheé ‘of the respondent. F'.l.R. was lodged at P. S. Bacheli. The respondent was prosecuted under Section 409 of I.P.C. (5) Aéquittal of the respondent by the Judicial MagistratevFirst Class, . Jagdalpur is on the ground that the prosecution has not been. able to » Iprove that the respondent had kept the box over the carrier of the Bus or that he was in conscious possession of 28 K.G. of copper wire in a tin box kept over the carrier of the bus coming from Bacheii to )Raipur. a investigating Officer was not examined. ln para 7, it wasobserved that no passenger travelling in the bus or conductor or driver of the bus was cited or examined as a witness. There is no material on record to show that the respondenthad kept the tin box over the center of the bus. There was no i material to show that the respondent had received the copper wire found , in the box on indent. The C.l.S.F. security guard who asked the respondent to open the tin box kept over the carrier of the ans, wasnot - examined though listed by the prosecution as a witness. The possibility that the respondent was falsely implicated could not be ruled outw V i3\£m ' t6) Having heard learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State, we have perused the impugned judgment dated 08-09-1989 as also the record of Criminal.Caseg,No.712/88; We fund no reason for taking a different ,view. ‘Q (7) , In the resuit, the ap‘peal has no merit anduis accordingly qismissed. : sul- ‘l Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge \ / Sdl- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Wham? ; .x ‘