@i @f Single Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, APPELLANT Cr'. M. P.No GV D. 3: Subramaniyam [200? Shastri S/o. Late D.V. N, Murtim Aged about...5.q.:?...years, Secretary Andhra Samaj, R/o. Babu Colony Railway Qwa. Nb. 38 /2007 P.s.- Torwa Bilaspur (C.G.)\ ERsus V RESPONDENTS 1. V. Subramaniyam S/o. Aged about 36 years, Clerk .. V Andhra Samaj girls Higher Secondary School, Budhwari Bazar, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt B. Ratna Devi W/o. B. Head Minister, Andhra Samaj Girls Higher Secondary School Near Budhwari Bzar, ' P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.). G. Ganpat Rao , aged 45 years, Teacher/ clerk primary Andhra Samaj English Medium School Budhwari Bazar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Ramanna Rao, I Torwa, @ Smt. A. O. Karner, Teacher Little Flower School, Andhra Samaj, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) AP.PLICATION FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE U/S. 378% (4) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. “w” 38 @ WM HIGH COURT OF CHH£§TTE$§ARAT $ILASFUR H 5§ng!e gemh : Han'ble Mr. Jus?iae ?r§?§akzr Diwgkz 4 APPELLANT S r Chm? N9. @41? a? 2&39 I D. $Lgbmmaniygm hggfr‘i Appiican‘r Versus Vx Subramqniyam and ofhars Shri Indrasen 5am,- counsel for The applicant Shr‘i afnesh Kumar Agrawai, counsel for fh responden‘fs. I O R D E R {04.022019} Heard an 1A No. 01/2008 whéch is an applicm‘ion for condonafion of delay in filing the insTan‘l appeal. For The reasons menl'loned. in fhe appica‘lion, ii' is allowed and The delay in filing The appeal is hereby condoned. Also head on The quesfion of admission. Presem‘ efiiion is directed againsi The mpugned judgmem daf 24.7.zOQ7 passed by Judieial Magiefr'aie, First V Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 529/2006 acquii‘iing The respondenTs n complainf case for The offences punishable under SecTions 420 and 408 9f The Indian Penal Code. 2. As per' The case of The complainanT, aT The relevanT Time he was wanking as SecreTary .of Andhm 5amaj Co—operaTive SacieTy and The. said SacieTy rans a Girls schoal in The name and sTyled of Andhra Samaj Girls Higher Secondary Schaali IT is alleged ThaT accused/respondenTs were emplcyee of The said \// school and have eammiTTed The forgery and financial \ ‘ \ ; \ v RESPONDENTS R e CRIMNAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 1 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCENJRE. . l r p i ed i h). @ irregularh‘ies by accepfing Rs. 5 mkh from various studems and Then no? deposi’ring The scxme in The schco! rgcwd: 3. in support of i’rs case, ihe compiainan’r has examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Sec‘Hon 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure in which They denied The charges ieveQed againsT Them and pleaded innocence and false implicaTion in The case. This aparT, Two wiTnesse3 namely R‘ CheTTy gabu (DW—l) d $.SiTaram (DW-Z) have also been examined by The defence in supporT' of iTs case. 4. By The judgmenT impugned The courT belaw has acqulTTed The respondenTs/accused far The alleged offences punishable under SecTions 420 and 408 of The Indian Penal Code. Hence The presenT peTiTion. 5. Counsel for The applicanT/complainanT submiTs ThaT despiTe sufficienT evidence available on record, The courT below has erred in law in acquiTTing The respondenTs. He submiTs ThaT The ingredienTs of SecTions 420 <§. 408 of The IPC are clearly spelled ouT in The presenT case buT yeT by giving perverse finding The courT below has acquiTTed The accused per‘SOnS. 6. On The oTher hand, counsel for The respondenTs supporTs The impugned JudgmenT and submiTs ThaT The order of The ii acquiTTal is in accordance wiTh law because prosecuTion has failed To prove iTs case beyond reasonable doubT. 7. I have heard counsel for The parTies and perused The l ‘ maTerial available on record. @ 8. The Cour? below affer’ cwsidering ’rhe en‘h‘re evidence has acqui’rfed The respwdenfs/accused on Thefoiiowing grounds. (A) Socie’ry has n92? bdged any report before the police or' complain? before The competenf au‘rhor'ify and The presen‘r compiain’r ha5 been fiied-by fhe compiainam‘ in his individuul capaci’ry. (B) No report whaisoever has been lodged by any of The sTudenTs or Their parenTs. (c) Defence wiTnesses namely R. CheTTy Babu (DW-i) qndG. SiTamm (DW—Z), who were working as Treasurer in The SocieTy have caTegorically sTaTed ThaT enTire money collecTed by The accused persons was deposiTed in The Bank and There is no embezzlement illegaliTy or irregulariTy in The same. 9. From The evidence of D5, ShasTri (CW—1), P. Harshvardhan (CW-2), Rajendra Kumar (CW-3) and P. Laxman (CW—4) iT has noT been esTablished by The complainanT ThaT The accused persons have commiTTed any crime. Record shows ThaT because of some inTernal poliTics of The SocieTy, The complainanT had filed The presenT complainT and moreover The parenTs of The sTudenTs have categorically sTaTed That whatever amounT was deposited by Them, they used To get receipt of the same. 10. After due appreciation of the evidence), available on record, The Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonabte doub‘ts/ The respcndan?s!accused are em‘i‘ded for acquifml. " The evidence available on record and being very much ccnsciws cf The exis‘ring legal pash‘ian Thm‘ in a case againsf acquh‘m! if fwo views are pessibie on The basis of The evidence led by ihe prosecuiion and The frial Coum‘ Taking one View favoumble lo The accused, reversion of the findings of acquii'fal by ‘lhe appellaie Cour-1" Taking the oiher- possible View info considermfion, is noT permissible in law, ihis Cour’r is of The view Thai The judgmem‘ impugned acquiTTing The respondents/ accused of The offence punishable under SecTions 420 and 4.08 of The Indian Penal Code‘ is JusT and proper and does noT call for any inTerference by This Court 12. For The reasons aforemenTioned, There is no meriT in The presenT case and The same is dismissed accordingly. /’ 11. AfTer hearing counsel for The parTies and going Through ‘ ”f sai— ‘ Diwaker Prl “dge \\ i i /./ n i