/•5'..i>3.S. flf' ^g"S-» "y ^ 11 j:] • 'U/^m^'TBT I? %SO - TT?<ST-¥<T>1? 01&T-iT*1WF'£iF"SP T'^li? &'SS'T^' • n^jxv Qa^aif s^s,^^ IJU^AA^-JE* x'xEjLis,s?i£^3Lis^. i.ss.Ws^s^.s.ss '<,• versus The State ot'CIihattisgarh Hoisndra Giri Smt. Sauta Gliai, P.L. for the State/appellant. ^Shri Suslioblu.t Singli, couii.selfor ftie respondent 37^3rttlMBMap|'AP^Ejy.::UIB^^SEC"nOM_37SULOF_ISE The presentipetition filed uader Sectien 378(.fl ofthe Cr.P.C.iis directed against the impugned-jud.ginentand order dated 26.09.2000 passed by fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamuud iii Gr. Case No. 466/99 acq'uittiag the respondent/accused iinder Section 409ofth£IPC, . ^ : : 2. Case of tlie prosecutioa iu briefis that a written coiaTllaiilt was r----——-—^ — -—-— -—^--^.—.-— ^-—^.—,^. .^ lodged by coiaplainaTit Ram.nai'ayan Bajpai (P.W.8 & 11) aUegiag ffi&t the respondent/accused who was fhe predecessor ofScer of |tl]e cbiaplaiaaiit. had coiamitted bi^ach. of tnist ofBs. 13,325;23. Ifclis atleged that certam amoiui¥ was recovered frQm.. the tsoiToweits. receipts ofthe saiae were given, however,, the same was not depos^d ia the baak and ^Iiis ainount has been inisappropriated. Basedi^a ttus coinplaint, ,ttie respondent/accused was prosecuted unijlj^r Sectioii409oftheIPC. :. 1'l : 3. In support;&fys case, ftie p-EOSecution ;'l:ias,exaBaiEied.|3j » witaesses including thatofcoinplaiiisiif^Rain Narayaii Bajpai (P.'W|.-^ ;< & 11). Stateiaentoffherespondent/accusedwasalsorecord.edu.'aifler ^ 'i? Secuon 313 Cr.P.C. ia which he denied the charges levelled agahist him and pleaded tiis uinocence aud false iiuplicalion in ftie case. 4. After hearing the parties, fhe trial Court has acquitt.ed Tlie aceused/respondent of the offence as Bientioned above. Hence. tbe preseut appeal. 5. Sint. Ghai, counsel for tbe State/appeUatit sub-mits tb.at fhe Court below has erred in law in acquittm.g fhe respoiident/accused despite recoveiy of fhe aaioiuit of Rs. 13,325.25 which lias been inisappropriated by fhe respondent. She further submits fh&t the evidence has not beeu correctly appreciated by the Court below while acqiiitting fhe respondent. .} .-—? 6. On the ofher haad, supporting fh.e unpugned judg~ment. it has been argued by Suri Sin.gh that fbe prosecution has utterly failed t.o prove its case. He subinits that even fhe written coinplam.t has not been exhibited, FIR has not been exlubited, fhe enqiuTy icport wbich is fhe base of lodgiag ttie FIR has not been produced before the Court, uie Investigatiag Of&cer has not beea exainined arid fhercfore! tlie acquittal offhe respondent is fully justified. 7. Heard counsel for fhe parties acd perused the laaterial a.vailable on record. The Court below has acqilitted the rcspondent/ accused on the followin.g grounds; i) tftat the enquiiy was conducted by fhe coiaplaiiiant Raaa Narayaji Bajpai (P.W.-8 & 11) but no such enquiry repdrt was flled by fhe prosecution. 1 : ii) Iri.vesti.gat.uig Officer could aot be exainiaed by prosecution. iii) Tliat fhe eutries niade in the account book do not show anv deficiencv in fhe fands as weU as iu fhe casb. booy. iv) Even fhe com.plaiaaDt Raai Nai'ayad Bajpai is not s-are about tlie aUegations as leveUed agaia.st the responden[t.; H &^Si. 8. Bare perusal of the evidence and the judguient of fhe tnal Court Biakes it. clear tliat while passiag the judgruent unpugned ftie fcrial Coiu-t has considered aU the asDects offhe case aad has arrived to a particular conclusion ofacqiutting the n-spondent/accused. 9. Thus, after heaiing counsel for tlie parties and cossideri.ng tlie laaterial available oa record as weU as tlie elaborEite judgaient iinpugaed passed by tlie Court below and beiag very rauch coascious of the e^cistiug legal position fhat ill ajl appeal against acquittal if tavo views ai'e possible on tlie basis offhe evidence led b;,r the prosecution aiid th.e trial Court takiag one view favouisd the accuaed. reversion of the fmdro.gs of acquittal by fhe appellate Court taMae The ofeer pla-iisible view Mlto consideratiou, is not permissible ui law, tliis Court is of tli.e view tbat rlie judginent impligiied acquitting tlie accused/respondent oftiie oSence as alleged, is just and proper and does not warrant aav iiiterference by this Co'i3lt. Accordi.a.gly, fhe appeat fails aad is disiuissed as such. ,. L Sd/- . Pritinker Diwaker Judge