y ^ Bench ^t ^ IM_SHE HI^J3©1ICTOF_M^@'A_PEADESH A31« JABM^VR ^cr.c^' s@^ ^-^/ 7 ^ Crimisaal -^i>@al Nfe> e '.. -^':s^tt, _^/9.C- ^^nmmaf^ ^PPSLLANT RSS^ONDENTS Stat@ of M»P» -^RSgSo' ^'^J s Rajesh ^ra^r <J@iswral S/@ Ja^w^a frde^Jais^al^ age^" 18 ^ears, /J&/©/6ltyKQtwall; , Bilag^r, </Teb» & Distt* Bilasp^r,- (MP) jSSLl-CKSim^QR LEA¥B TO APSEAL m©SRSECTIQN 37^(3) CR.P.C^ 'CRIMXNM. AE>PEM- WBER SECTia3'-378,V2,-CRSCA7: .^^^ .^y>z^^ <^ @ HI©HCOURT OF CHHATTCSeARH AT BIL4SMJR Si'ngte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prrtinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 1999 APPELUNT RESPONDENT State of AAodhya Pradesh Versus Rajesh Kumar Jaiswat Shri Praveen Das, Dy. 6ovt. Advocate for the State. Shri Monoj AAishra, counsel for the respondent/accused. APPLICATCON FOR 6RANT OF LEAV6 TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 ^ OF THE CODE OF CRIMXNAL PROCEDUKE JUb6EMENT (17.03.2011) This appea! is dir^ted against th©jmpugned judgment and order dated 27.8.1993 passed by Addl. Chief JudictQl Magistrote, Bjjaspur in Crjminaj Cose No. 565/1991 ocquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishabte under Section 379 of the Indian Penoj Code. 2. Cose of the prosecution is that in the jntervening night of 27th A 28th August, 1990, the appellant has committed theft of Hero Honda motorcycle of the complaJnant Ajay Singh and the sdd motorcycle WQS seized from his possession on 28.8.1990. After completion of investigfftion, chQffan wos filed on 19.3.1991 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, charges were framed by the trial Courl- a9oinst the accu^d/appellant on 25.3.1992 and thereafter, for the first time summon was issued on 25.4.1992. Thereafter, again summons wer®issued on 23.7.1992, 24.9.1992, 14.11.t992 and 11.1.1993 and then bailable warrant were also issued on 11.2.1993 and 15.3.1993 and further summons were issued on several opportunities the prosecution hos filed to adduce any evidence ogainst the respondent/accused. 3- In order to prove the guilt of the respondent/accysed the prosecution hos faiied to excanine any of the witnesses In support-of itscase. 4. By the judgment impugned the court below hos acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Sectlon 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the State/appellant submits thot some more opport'unity ought to hoive been given by the court' below to adduce any evidence in support- of its case. 6. On the other hond, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by counsej for the respondent that despite twelve opport'unities, the prosecution hos failed to adduce any evidence in support- of its case and, therefore, oGquittQJ of the respondent/accused js fullyjustified. 7. I have heard counset for the port'ies and perused the moteriaj wailable on record jncluding Judgment impugned. 8. Perusal of the record clearly goes to show that the prosecution was afforded sufficient opporl-unity to lead its evidence but in spite of all this, it has not been able to do so ond that being so the trial Court- has been fully justified in acquitting the respondent/accused by the judgment impugned. The findings recorded by the court below in acquitting the respondent/accused are just and proper caliing for no interference in this apped. Accordingly, the appeaj being without substance is liabte to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge