,'v-ii-X'\ K|^'^;^sS^^^^:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i:^S^^S^®^5ii^^^?;^E^^^^^i:^'^^^g^^^ IN THE HB^B&E HBSH fiWCT OF eHHi T;i5^ftaa AT BIXASPCTt. Sr.4a ^/io^ Cy^i 3'si KEVU.QKSS APBELIiANT GOH?&AIHftKT AnaataebaEya so'n o£ Swami Raghvendra- charya, Restdent of VeidEateesh »ai>dtr Sadar Basar BUaspurP«S* clty Kotwali DJLstriet Bilaepur (C»S»). VERSUS RESPONDENT ACCUSED Venkatesh Gadodiya son of Hattaaal Sadediya, aged aboat 44 years, Vt/o. Sadar Bazar Bllaspur, Tahsil and Dlstrict Bilaspur (C.G.). CRIMINftL APPE&L V/S 378 0?^RIMINAL PReGBDtJCRE OODE. AGAINST -^-- THE OBBER /JUDGEMENT OF ACQOITTAL PASSED BY THE OOUKT BELOW INSTXTUTBD UPON OOHPLAIHT GASE. '/ Jt-ww^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Anantachar/a Venkatesh Gadodiya VERSUS Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri Counsei for the appiicant. Shri M. L. Saket counse! for She accused/r APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 S4) OF THE GODE OF CRIK!!NAL PROCEDURE. ORDE .2S1Si The present petition which is barred by 40 days deiay is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2004 passed by the Chief Judicia,) Magistrate, Biiaspur, in Criminai Compiaint Case No. 40^8/2003 dismissing the case as filed by applicanVcompiainant the learned Court beiow has ac-quitted the respondent under sections 420. and •TO6 of IPC. 2. Brief Tacts of the case are that on 04.02.1997 a compiaint 'was filed by the spplicant before the learned JudiciaE Maglstrate, First Ciass aiieging In it thgt though, the respondenf was not authorized by the Venkatesh Tempie Trust to let out the shop in question but yei the said shop was given on rent to one Visambhar La! Saraf who happens to be one ofthe reiatives of the accused and thereby the accused had obtained Rs. 3,00,000 as advance and the same amount was not deposited to the Trust. 3. In support of its case the petitioner has examined three witnesses and after appreciation of the evidence ths iearned Magistrate hss acquitted the accused of the offence as mentioned above and therefore the present petition. < 4. Counsei for the applicant submits that the Court below has erred in', iaw in acquitting the respondent. ^•SS!SSf-^,_ ^y^<4 ^k. ../ :ir "^ '% ^l :'A •••. ?y ^,^ '^^,/ -<*r" c •'e"'-. !?* hsFtr^ <sr Fs^rtFirt'Enn fi^& iiTsn' inn^rf EI tri!ntn.ff>E^i' Ef h%% h'^&ff"; .uc yis SCE E rcs.t sy Ssuyyy LEMU liiy HE<yUUUCU EUU^4i I ta?E )ll Eii, i iiCE2* »JS?tSH a' i" ^ . . - i' • • -s^ argued by the counsel for the respondent/accused that ths impugned judgme"t is strictSy in accordance with iaw and there is'no infirmity in the same. 6. Heard counse! 'for the Darties and perused the material avaliabie on 7. From the compiaint and the staiement of the complainant, it is apparent that ai! the ailegations have been leveiied against one Madhohari Gadodiya whereas the complaint was fiied against the present rsspondent who is Venkatesh Gadodiya and there is absolutely no aliegation against the accused/respondent. The compiainant v'.'itness Badri Narayan Tripathi (PW-2) has not supportad the case of the prosecution. Even the resevant agreement was not fiied by the compiainant and from the documents, it does not reflect that any offence has been committed by ihe respondent. Ail these aspects have been duly considered by the Court beiow while passing the impugned judgment ofacquittai. 8. After going through the material avaiiable on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal posltion that in an appeai against acquittal if tvvo views are possible on the basis of evidsnce !ed by the prosecution and the triai Court taking ona view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of th.e findings of acquittsi by the appeliate Court taking the other possibie' view into considergilon, is not permissible in law and further that this petition is barred by 40 days and there is no justificaiion for the same, therefore, the judgmenf impugned acquitting accused/Tespondent of the charges under Sections 420 and 405 of IPC, isjust and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingiy, the appiication seeking leave to appeai being wlthout substance is iiable to be rejected. it is accordingiy rejected and ieave to appeai as prayed Tor is refused. rD^a^er ludge