’l’lH’l‘ "'ll ” H ' CF0000064536 ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE AT JAgALPUR. .ontév > sc.Cri.Ca’se No. V ‘ 1§ 7 200 Cri.Appeal No. \‘ii’f'n ’ /2000 State of Madhya‘Prééesh through P.S.V Bhilai Nagar, Burg. - VERSUS — PPLICANT u bn,v :‘ 1. Dw Krishna aged abbti‘lé' Murthi 21years,’ S/o DvBlchhalu, f.{/o‘C/1'2 Punjab National Bank Conny, ghil’a’ ‘ Nagar Distt.Durg. ONuAPPLICAN T3 ' a§N DEN :IS 2. VistmKPrasad Tripathi s/o Chandra Shekar Tripathi, ged about 4‘0 years; R/o‘Géhdhi Nagér, P.S. Supela, Distramrg. ax EPPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE T‘o APPEAL U/s 378(iig_) bRmmAL PRGCEDUaE-oonE/APPEAL U/s 378(1) mac. #L ‘7, ”k i ‘ i @ SB : HGN’BLE MR. J13STE€3E PRETXN‘KER DIVVAKER 3E : EQWELE EEK. &‘EE§TE€SE Pm?§f¥E§ER DEWAKER CRaA. K9. 237 1f 2&GQ ‘éP?LI§AE€TI Sate of M. P. V6rsus mam—APPLMMTS ‘ D. hwwa Maxim 55 Am. ‘ Shri Ravindra AgrawaL PL. for the Staia! apyilcmt gPLICATION ¥€3R GRANT CF LEAVE 'TO A?PE£L ENS 3'?8{3} :QNE a EMQ Q? $FPE$L T5 ’$ 3’?8£ 1" F TEE CR.P. Jummam q2aa420m; £ a Th€ presknz app€ai arises out of thE judgmiini ami cm‘ar dat€d 18] 1 1j96 passed by the Chief Judicial Mag§s§ratq Durg in Crimmai Cam No. 24.13192 whereby acquittmg ths rsspondeats for ths 0§encss under Sactions 420/34, 467] 120 (3r. 4713'120 of I.P.C. 2. Bn‘af facts of the case: are {hat (m 20} 110/ 90 account hQldcr of Account No. ’12272'of Punjab Nau'cnal Bank, Civic Ccugre, Bhiiai made a complaint to the Branch Manager OP. Chawla {P.W.3) alleging m it that someone has WLthdrawn Rs. 2000f— from his account on 1.0] 1 1 ,1 90. This compkaint was enquireci by the Branch. Manager and he came to know that it is the Respomient No. 1 who was working as sweeper, had withdrawn the said amount and some more amount from differeiit aecomns. The enquiry was made from the other customers Koushalya (RW. 1) 8r. Sug’an Singh (RWQ) and it was revealed that even these persons have not withdrawn t the amount from their account. Thereafter on 1 1 I 12] 90 Koushalya at (P.W.1) 35 Sujan Singh (P.W.2) gave a comelai‘nt in writing (EXP! 1} mentioning in it that someone has withdrawn the amount of Rs. 9,000 Ln three installments on different dates. After the in house enquiry the Branch Manager locigeé the written complaint to the Police on 22.!12f90 vide EXP/4 and after investigation, the chaiian was filed against the responc‘ients on 27/ 2j91 for the M 9 C. i offences punishable un&er Sections 420? 466, 471:. 120$} and 34 of I.P.C. and. thcreafter the accused persons were prosecuted. 8. In supper; of its case, the. prosecuiion has exammeéi as many as eight wimesses. Statement of the accusedlrespondents were also mcorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded there innocence and false implication in the case. ‘ 4. By the impugned judgment the Court below has acquitted u‘. the accused'lrespondents'of the oEences as mentioned above. Hence the present appeal. 5§ Contention of the counsel for the applicant] State is that on the basis of‘maten‘al available on record the Court below ought to have convicted the accusedfrespondents. He submits that though the report of the hand “Kiting expert is avaiiable on record but ignon‘ng the same the Court below has acquitted the respondents 6. I have heard counsel for the marines and perused the Judgment impugned as well as the material available on recs d From the record it is clear that the report of the hand writing expert dated 12f7/91 is there on record and the same is positive but this document has not been exhibited by the prosecution before the Court below nor any opportunity has been given to the accused persons in respect of the same. From the evidence it is not very clear that it is the accused persons alone who have Withdrawn the amount and that too without getting support from the other bank employees. Q‘f 7. All these aspects have been duly considered by the Court below and ,after appreciating the entire evidence, the Court below has arrived to a. particular conclusion of acquitting the accused] respondents. U8. I iind no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal particularly the view taken by the court below is one of the possible View. It is a settled position of law in relation to cases against acquittal, in a peh‘tion againsi acquittal iftwo views are possible on the baSis of ths evidence 1exi by the prosecution arid the trial Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the filldings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible View irito consideration is Ixot pemissible in law, this Court is of the View that the judgment impugued‘ acquitting the respondents] accused of the offence as alleged is just and proper and does not warraiit any interfereuce by fhis Cour‘t. Accordingiy, the appeai faiis and is dismissed as such. v Sdl- . “3 Pritinker Diwaker u . Judge \ 4