^u? ^. &gie Bench r-; ^I { IN1HE HIG2I CGBSS ©PJtTDICATITRB M.P.AT J&BALFXJR MisaE.cK!:.essE^.'%^l4'S~—/9Tl/-^2r»-i-^? s--; CKIMIBA&' M-PBM, HO. /97 aPPSLLAm's aSBS?QSDEHTS; S'tate o£ M..P. through Distriet Magis-tratt Raigax-b. . Versas, > ^ . ' • .. • : ' • . .; • '' . . ' ' •' Vtsbau Harayaa S/o Baj,ragi Satpatl, . , aged 28 years, S/e Pasoaryg.s.Pasoar '. ' Distt.Saigarfa. •; -: , . ,. APSLICAIICH SOK X,E&VE TO APPBJ!^_roDEfi_SEeTIOH_378(iii) 'AQAIN ACQUITr&L AHD CSIMIBAL APgEffl., WDEa^ECTICT 378(1) Of 'eR.P.C m. HIGH.eoirRT-OKCHHA'IlaSGARH AT BILASPCR: f>i»v w- aA-u> •nWfl:' 01,»IiJr IlljES* ^.UDAJIl-rJEit I'''JU, 4 S^Bini&CT. , vepsus StateofM.P. Vishnu Narayan. ^Sbn^'Piasw^Das^^^.G.&.'^Qie Sta^^a^ 378(iiir^AGAIWST..it©OCTft^^u 'eR.A.;inH3EK'SEeTIt». •';37g»li:OP'TiiE'CR.P.C.:'/:'';^^ ,: ~::: 1 113.08.20t0t ,;. .:'; . • " - , The presentpetitioD. filed lUlderSectidn 378(3) olfhe Cr-P.G. is dirGGted agamst tfae iurpygiied judgment aad order dated 27.2.97 passed by the Additionat Cflief Jydicial M^istrtate, Jashpiirnagar, District Raigarh ia Cr. Case Nq. 906/82 aequittmgtEerespon<lentunderSe^ 2. Brieffaets offhe csise aie that at fhe relcvaiit tiine i.e. ni Uetween 19. t-76 to 28.12.76, therespoadentwasv^rkiagas Sainiti Sewak ia the viUa^ C^perative Society is aflegM fbatlie uiisappiopriated theaino^ allegation; against the respQndent is that fhQugh the said amouM^as re<^iyed by Iiun by difereat perspns b was 7n<^ d^osited, mitfe ^^ f^ lodgea:l3y.Qne€.F'.:NishadoQ^8.6.79. - . ,, , , , ^. '.• • • . '•••'•. : • • • • •'. . • ..•••'. ' .'.••:'•• 3. S6 as to hoU tKe accused/respQndent guiliy ffie prosecufion faas exainmed as niaay as 13 witaesses. Sfatenient of ffie acGused/respondeirttffas also recorded tuider Sectkm 313 bf.fhe Cr.P.G. ia which^^^f^^ aUeged agaiast fiM^ "aiBt pleacted ^their iniiocence atut lalsej :inapIicationM^:t]:ie;Ga^.l::''''''^ y:'; - ; ':' ' ••' ., ^ <;' :. .,:" •^' '"^^-^-:wl^./;^...^;;;. ^: £• 4. Afterliearing the parties, the trialCourt has acquitted fhe accused/respondentpfthe offeuce as inentioned above. Hence, tiie presentappeal. 5. Contention of Shri Das, is fhat on fhe basis of the evidence and material available on record, the Court below ouglit to have convicted the aecused/ respondeiit. He subnuts th.at the Coiirt belbw has taken a verv lenient view while passiug fb.e uitpugned judgment. 6. From the record it is apparent that ttie lodger of the FIR C.P.Nishad toas not been exainiaed likewise the invest^atuig officer who registered the FIR faas also not been examined aad fh.us, fhe FIR has aot been proved by tiie prosecution. Further ftonl fhe statement pf Mab.eshwar Ram. (P.W.-1), Lawreace (P.W.-2);Samra(P.W.-3),Jefhurain(P.W.-4),ehuiyaRam(P.W.- 5) & Sohan Ram (P.W.-7) who have attegedly deposited the amount, dpes not say that it is fhe accused/respondeiit who had iiusappropriatedtfaesaine. 7. Coasideriag aU fhe' facts and.aspects pf thfi case, fhe Court Uelow has arrived to a conclusion of acqTutting the accused/resppiidertt, 8. I find no reason to interfere ia fh.e judgment of acquittal particularly ttie view taken by fhe court below is one of the possible view. It is a settled position oflaw ia relation to cases agauistacquittal, iu a petition agaiast acqultfal iftwp views are possible on the basis offhe evidence led by the prosecution and fhe trial Court takmg orie view favoiired the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by ftie appeUate Court taMag fhe bther possible view iato eoHsideration is notpeiiiussible in law. This Gourt isof fhe view that fhe judgment impugned acquittmg flie respoiMleD.t/accused of fhe oSemse as alle^d is just and proper, AccordLmgiy, the leave as sought for bv the appIicaut/State for registrataon of appeal agaiast the judgment of acquittal is hereby refased; Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge