IN T HIQ-L CGURT OF JUDICA‘I‘URE AT JABALPUR (M P .o‘oa, EE } mac .CRI ”CASE No . S? Q S csé/ 19?}? CRI APPEAL NO; '\ 3£ C OF 1997‘ State of Madhya Pradeah through the mstrict Magistrate ne,Bilaspur (M P ) APE’ELLABTT APPLICANT hVS t” 1. Vimal Koha11;s/o late $.13. Kohali,aged about V33 years’. 2‘ Smt .Manohar Kanta Kohali, w/o Shri G. ¢K0hali,aged about ‘61 years, Both are resldent of’Furani Basti,Korba',Police Siiation Korba,District: EilaspurAM£al REs gaoNDENTs HON-Apmxams *‘ We; an £ .éigug Z’mwmm‘ E? S’m u A§ C‘T" ‘ . A"mm: Nmah M‘ . 3%A,&. AWELICATIGN UNDER SEC3TIGN 378(3) FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE O? CRIMINAL PRGCEDURE 1973} {5m . w . 9 HIGH CCURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2300 of 1997 ,APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS Vimal Kohali and another. RESP¢NDENTS Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for the appellant/State. None for the respondents/accused. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 11! OF THE CODE OF ' ‘ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (W.a7.2o10) V‘ A a “x The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.3.1997 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba in Criminal Case No. 1302/1994 acquittihg respondent/accused Vimal Kohli of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 465/471 and respondent/accused Manohar Kant Kohli u/s 467/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 13.9.1990 FIR (unexhibited) was lodged by one Devendra Pratap Keshri Superintending Engineer MPEB Korba (East) that after preparing fake purchase orders certain articles were supplied by respondent No1 proiecting himself to be the proprietor of M/s Unique Industrial Products Howrah whereas while opening the bank account of respondent No1 in UCO Bank Korba respondent No 2 had identified him Further allegation against them is that by the above act of the respondents, they had Withdrawn Rs. 64 450 from the Electricity Board. 3. ‘So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, prosecution has examined 15 Witnesses in support of its case Statements of the agcused/respondents were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of ‘ l Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them E, l and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basrs of material collected by the prosecution the Court below ought to have conVicted the i l I l r . ’l ”2/ respondents/accused for the offences described above but ignorihg the same and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondents, it has failen in a ; grave legai error. 5. On the other hand counsei for the respondents/accused sbpports the impugned judgment and submits that the acquittal of the respondents ‘ is based bn due appreciation of the evidence cn record and hence it being just and proper need not be interfered with. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and, perused the material available on record. ‘7. From the evidence available on record it is apparent that none of the bank officers have been examined by the prosecution Even the complainant has not been examined and therefore denial of Signature In the purchase order has not been proved Even the FIR has not been exhibited by the prosecution and other eVIdence adduced by the prosecution does not make out a case against the respondents/accused. Tn these circumstances, the findings of the Court below do not'appear to be faulted with. 8. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very muc’h conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against} acquittal if two views are possibleon the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into§onsideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting respondent/accused Vimal Kohli of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 465/471 and respondent/accused Manohar Kant Kohli u/s 467/34 of the Indian ‘Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being withoutsubstance is liable to be dismissed. lt is accordingly dismissed.,)//r’:/’r:i: : V ‘ l ’/ sw- Judge l l l Pmmker Diwaker