r /'^'t. •s^ ':.- :i^^.- CF0000689722' ^{{^r ;u IN THS HIQH CGWma* OP JUDIGAaPURE M£se•Cri.Case N®* ^g^ /2©0@ <^ C^^aal^peal H©» Appetla.nfe s Stateof Madhya Pradesh ^©^1=- r - Veaaaas —_:. : . . • ,, ,. '•• . . /..;:;•'.•-; Bespondenfes s l.Slaeichar GhaQdrakar, §/©Late Derha Prasad aged 33 yeas?s^ £</o I»alp^r Bagbahara. 2^<7y@tt Taaawa T»nare S/o Taxswa Umare^ R/o Bagbahara,Distt» Mabasami.ind, 3 ^tuvraJ SiBgb &atel^ S/o Janaieram pat@l^ ^ ag®3,60 3?"ears, S^/e Paehpedi Maka, Raipar. ' APPLaeAS'ION POR USAVE TO A^PBXL U/S 37808 AHa CRI.APPBAL_ U/S 378<l)Cr«P»C»ASAINST AgQUmAL. ; : HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS©ARHAT BILASPUR Singie Bench : Hors'ble Mr, JustJce Pritinker Dlwaker Acauittal ^Dpeol No. 10 of 2009 APPLICANT RESPONDBMTS State of MGdhya Pradesh Versus Shekhar Chandrakar and others. Shri Praveen &as, Dy. GA. for the State/applicant, Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for 1tie respondents/accused, APPLICATION FOR 6RANT OF L6AVE TO APPEAL UN&^ SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCE&l^E JUDGEM6NT (28.01.2011) The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 20.09.1999 passed by Chief Judicia! Ma9istrate, Mahossamund in Criminai Case No. 970/1995 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence punishable under 5ection 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2, Brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 1 - Shekhar Chandrakar was a cattle trader at the relevant time whereas respondents No. 2 and 3 namely Jyoti Tanwa Umare and Youroj respectively, are the veterinary doctors . As per 1+ie government scheme in 1+ie year 1993-94 cattle were to be distributed to as many as 22 farmers after obtaininQ finance from the Punjab National Bank and it is alleged that respondent No. 1 namely Shekhar Chandrakar supplied the inferior quaiity of cattle i.e< cross breed cows instead of cows belonging to Jersey Breed and the altegations against the respondents No, 2 & 3 are that they have shown the inferior qualit/ of cattle j,e, cross breed cows to be Jersey cows wi1+iout making any physical verification. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-1) dated 7.3.1994 iod9ed by affected villagers, F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was registered by the police on 2.4.1994 against the respondents/accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, After investigation/chGllan was filed on 23,12.1994 by the police under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 3. In order to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence and false impiication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned the court below has acquitted the respondents/accused of the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 5< During the pendency of the appeal, the accused/ respondents No. 2 and 3 namely Jyoti Tanwa Umare and Youraj respectively have expired and, therefore, present appeal is confined to only in respect of Shekhar Chandrakar. 6, Heard courisel for the parties and perused the material ayailable on record including judgment impugned- 7. Counsel for the State/applicant submits that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the court below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused, He submits that poor villagers have been cheated by the respondents and have been given inferior quality of animals instead of jersey cow which were to be supplied under the government scheme. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that impugned Judgment is in accordance with law cnd there is no infirmit/ in the same, He submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that there existed any agreement between the parties for supply of Jersy breeds cow. He submits that no expert has been examined by the prosecution to show that the cQttle supplied were not of jersey :^) i'32^1 -1 ^:w^ breeds cow. He submits that even the complainants have failed to state that they identified the cattle. 9< After due Gppreciatidn of the evidence availabJe on record, the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the respondents/accused were entitted for Gcquittal, 10. After hearing counsel for the applicant and considering the materiai available on record as well as the ebborate judgment impugned and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/occused of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not call for <xny interference by 1+iis Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant for registration of appcGl against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused< Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ri/'