ai"r ffi HI&H' COUBI ep MAISY& mAEESH M 'LaBALPUR. sfi'.eR.C* N©. GRmiNAL APEEA]., HG. AFFELL&ICTs- - s-\' ^LJli BESEO]; 'f • s - ; • THE STAIE OF M.P. IB&QUGH ^ POLIGE •STATIQH-DONGAaQARH^-' -VEBSm- • • ' . i- JAGTEESH PEAa&DS/OR&HSAeEEV^H ,. SHARAM&, &GSD- 24 'fflAB.Sv' R/Q-- BOBE'E&IAB EOHGARQARH, M:' PBESBEl'EK f" -GaAM aAJ-P®,POtIGE'STATIQN,/ '••''HHMDH&S DISTaiCT-DUBfi(MP)y' APPLICA'FION FOE. IEA?E..'eO A££EAL.BHHE&,.3EeTIOM'378(y- - GK .P .C. /C&m'SlSL_ APPEAL UNffiE SEGTIQir375D^-CR-.E.-C._ / i-J - iis^ 1 ^J] '•fe.3? i-s.?' HI6H COURT OF CHHATHSSARH AT •ice Pritinker DIw of 1997 State of Madiya Pradesh (now Chhattisflarhl Vsrsus Tnnd^^f^h ?'Mn^€\f^ ^ ^\'W\^^f^f^i £ ; ^ ft^-s-?^-^1-.^ V Shri Akhi! Anishtra,^ Deputy Sovt. Advocate for the State/appeliant. As none Advocate empane Committee is appoi for respondsnt, fe\s. NirupaTia Bajpai, lied in the Hiqh Court Lecal Ssrvice nted-to appear and arfiue on his behalf. CRIMINAL APPcAt UNDEft SECTION 378 fl) OF ^*. T*>, '^ ^^\v~r t 'iPh^*. .it^^ ^^Wgnh ^^.^ ^ fl^St ^. 'f. '^ •ii '••lc*' ic. ;id^'W >tri\ •The present appea! orises out of th.s judgment and order dated 29.6.1996 posssd by Judici.a! Magistrate, Firet C!ass, Dongar-garh, Distrlct Rajnandgiaon in Criminal Case No. 612/85, 613/1985 and 614/1984 acquittina the respondent/accused for the alleged offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Psna! Code. 2. Brief facts of the cas®o.re that in between 13.12.1980 to 23.7.1981 the respondent/accused was working as Sub Postmaster, at sub post office Bortalab. It Is aiieged that ./ during thj^ period, the rsspondent has embezzlsd ors amount of Rs. 8506'/-from the accou.nts of Sunnatbi, Sukhram, Sharad Kumar and Jhhadirsm. After receiving the compiaint, the \' ^ V matter' WQS-.^nyestigated by high.er authoriti&s and enquiry repori' was submitted and pursuont to that written report d'a.ted. 13.6.1986 w.as lodged, on v/hich basis ths offence under ^ Section 409 of the Indian Pena! Code wo.s reglstered ago.inst the respondent/accused. 3. In support of its case, the pro.secution.has exam'ned as many as 6 w/itnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was ajso recorded under SectJon 313 o.f the Code of Crimino.j Procedure in which he denied the charge ievelied against h'm and pleaded his innocence and. fb.lse impiication irs the case. 4. Bv the iudQmeRt imBuar'ed ths court below has o.cauitted the respondent/accused for'the orfences as mentioned abcve. Hsncs th's appeo.1. 5. Counsej for the State/appellant submits that on the basis of evidence as adduced by ths prosecution, the couri- below ought to hays conyicted the accused/respondent. He submits that there is enouah material avsilabie on record warrar'ting conyiction of the respondent/accused. 6. On the other hand, counse! for the respondent support the impugned judgment and submits th.at impugned judgment is in accordonce with iaw and there is no infjrmity in the same. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties ond perused the material ovaHable on record. Thoy^h, Sukhr-am (PW-1), Amarsingh (PW-2), Rajendra ^ y - . Kumcsr (PW-3), Lakhan -Singh (PW-4) have stated that amount from their' account was v/ithdrawn by the respondent/cccused, but th®rejeva.nt document hoss not been submitted by the prosecution dsspi'i'ie aetting sufficient opport'unity nor any;- dpcument has been. exhlbited by the pr'osecution during eyidence ond neit-her the enquiry officsr has been examined by @ the prosecution nor any re.lo'l'ed documerits haye been produced. All these aspects have been duiy consldered by the court below while passing the impugned judgment of acquittoi. 9. After hearlng counsel for the parties and going through the evidenc®avaiiabie on record and being very much conscious •» of the existing legal position that in a ca.se Ggainst acquittai if two views are possibte on the bqsis of the eyidenc®!ed by the prosecution and the trio.l Court taking one view fayourab.ie to the accused, reversiors of ths findings of o.c-quittQ.I by th.e appellate Courj' taking t'h® other possible view into consideration, is not permis.sible in law, th.is Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/ accused of the offence punishable undgr Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does n.ot ca!! fo" any interference by th.is Couri'. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the. present case and the same is dismissed accordjnaiv_ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge -. / lll!i