C? Q ‘Q/ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATUREtklgE‘ WALPUR, MP. C CrA No.3-l‘?)\\3 OE 2000 APPLICANT APPE LLANT The State of Madhyé Pradesh VERSUS ‘ v RESPONDENT Reshamlal, Aged about 40 Years Sfo ManglGoram, ’ R/Q Sakreli, PS Baradwar Di$trict Janjgir—Champa MP APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEEUJ UNDER SECTION 3?8(3) END MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF €RIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 4 _ S a SB : HON’BLE MR JUS'NCE ‘PMTIHKER DEWAKER $3 : H§§5BLE MR. JU$TECE §mTEHKER DIWAKER ' €3R.A. NG. 2345i 2000 A??LICANT Stats of M . P. ‘ u ‘ varsus Rsshamia} E$I€4§PPLX€£H§T ‘ v bun Akml ‘vhshra DV x A to: I‘m bta e] &gnu<,anft APPL1§2ATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE 1 (3 A”? AL UIS 378$; AEB MEMQ Q? AP?EA.: UZS 7&§1‘ QE’PHE CR. P Ca wmm 127.w4.2e1e§ ¢ Th€ présant aypaal arises out of aha impugnad judgmsnt dated 25.2.2600 passed by thri Judicial Magistrate First Clgss, Sakti, district Bilaspur in Cr. Case No. 571/ 1997 whereby the accusedjrespcndent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. xiv 2. Bnef facts of the case are that at the relevaat tme respondent Reshamlal was Workmg as Branch Manager of ° Anguman Housmg and Fmance L1m1£ed and had collected Rs. 1100 from the compbjnant which was cieposited by him in instaihnent in betwsee 29.11.91 1111 4.5.1992. It is aueged‘by the compmmam Mahendra Kumar (P.W.—3) that sometime‘in the momh of May 1992 when he had gone to the bank he found that the same was . closed and on enquixy he came to know that it is file respondent who had grabbed the entire amount and is absconding; He has stated that on 19.1.94 he cou‘id get the respondent and when he demanded his. money the same was not retuxned to him and i thereby the respondent has committed the oEence under Section ‘ 420 of the Indian Pena} Code. 3. In suoport of its case the orosecution has examined as manv as 17 Witnesses Statement of the accusedjresnondent was 1 also recorded under Section 313 of the Lr P C 1n whtch he demed ‘ the charges level‘ted against tum and pleaded 111s mnocence and f ' false implicaiion in tha case. ‘E‘his apart; ona defence wim€ss has also been Examined by him in support of his case. 4. From the evidence it appears that the bank was not opened by the respondent but he was merely al1 employee of the said. bank. It is also clear &om the evidence that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay and no reason whatsoever has been assignerl by the complainant The evidence also reflects that there 1s no ewdence to the effect that the respondent had received the amount fraudulently or by cheating the complamant k . 5. Aftel: due appreciation of the evidence, the Court below has arrived to a gonclusion of aCQuittjng the accused] respondent. 6. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by‘the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellant Court taking the other possible View into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent] accused of the offence under Sections 420 of the indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does, not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed as such. Sdl- ‘g Pritinker Diwaker l Judge t __1‘r / {