@ HIGH COURT OF CHEEI‘TISGARH A? BELASPUR $E : HON”BLE MR. JUSTICE PEITIKKER DIWAKER CRA. No. 2032/ 1996 APPLICANT State of Madhya Pradssh V€ISI$1S Maruti NGN—APPLICANT ,v i ‘ ‘ Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. CnA. for the State} applicant. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3'78 {1) OF THE CR.P.C. k ORDER (29.04.2016) The present petition fiied under Section 37,:8{ 1) of me Cr.P.C. 3is directed against the impugneci order and judgment dated 130.8. 1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Raipur in Criminal Case NO. 1084/ 1992 whereby acquittmg the respondent} accused for the alleged oi¥ences under Section 3’79 of the IPC & 39 of the Indiarx Electricity Act. i2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.1.91) upon receiving information, Assistant Engineer Y.P.Dubey along with other employees of the Electricity Board has made a raid in the residence 30f the respondent and found direct hooking from the pole. After preparation of the panchnama and seizure,‘§fep01t was lodged 3before the police station Civil Lines, Raipur and after investigation ‘ offence under Section 379 IPC and 39 of the Indian Electricity Act 'was registered. '1 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined three i witnesses. Statement of the accused] respondent was also recorded i under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges :1eveleled against him and nleaded his innocence and false ; implican‘on in the case. a 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the tn'al Court has écquitted the accus€djrespondent for the o§ences as mentioned ébove. Hence the present appeal. ‘E 5. Contention of Shri Mishra, is that on the basis of evidence %dduced by the prosecution the Court below ought to have convicted the accused/respondent and the Court below has erred \ in i law in acquitting the accused} respondent. 6 Heard Shri Mishra and perused the judgment impugned as W‘en‘ as the material available on record. From the evidence it is not clear that the house in question belongs to thewrespondent, further the prosecution has also failed to prove the fact that the respondent was involved in commission of theft of electric1ty It is also apparent from the record that no independent Witness has been examined and only the employees of the Electrictty Board have been examined. 7. Considering the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, the Court below has acquitted the accused/respondent. Thus after gomg through the material available on record and being very much conSCious of the ex1sting legal posnion that in an appeal against acquittal if two Views are possible on the bas1s of eVidence Eled by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one. View favoured the accused this Court is of the cons1dered oniinon that reversion of the findings ot acquittal by the apnellate Court taking the other poss1ble View into conSideration is not permissible in law and therefore the Judgment impugned acquitting the respondent . jaccused of the offence as aforementioned, is Just and proper and gdoes not warrant any interference bv this Court Accordingly, the .appeal being Without substance is liable to be dismissed It is accordingly dismissedws Nn l Sd/- i‘ Pritinker Diwaker ‘ ( Judge