C &1:3// ummlunummulmmm CF0000060362 m rm? H}: CCURT OF JUDICATUW‘., AT JABALEUR i a CriminalAppeal Nogm‘? 97 App‘éllant V Re§Qondent Acqused Sta§e o£ Madhya Pracaes —Ver su s— Chamrulal aged about 35 years, s/o Kgnchan Pa. Soxii, r/o ,ahamaya Road Nagar Thana Ambikapur, Distt.sarguja(MP§. ‘ / 1 ‘ v0“ \ V. ckf” ‘1 \ ' 61 V . 9iWIanEmCATI’ON ‘ 1119mm SECTmN 378(iii) FOR LE§V§ To L APPEA AN__ I L D i ERIMINAL AmaiaAL UNDERggc'rION 378(1) CR;P.C. AGAINs THE ‘UITTAL OF RESPONDENT/ACCUSED }%) 9/4 Gag» 3p» WWI .. ..’’’. ‘D t m h , T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminai Appeal No. 2365 of 1997 a APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh. VERSUS RESPONDENT Chamrulal Shri Akhil Mishra Dy. GA for the appeHant/State. Shri Vikram Dixit counsei for the respondent. ‘ V ‘ CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER $ECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. O R D E R (23.04.2010) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 12.8.1997 passed by Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Ambikapur in” Criminai Case No. 488/1990 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2‘ Brief facts of the case are that on 23.5.1990 the respondent/accused was found in possession of one country made pistol and four iive cartridges which he vtas brandishing to one Hiraiai Soni in a public place. The respondent is alleged to have been caught by the police red handed. 3. ln order to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused, prosecution has examined only one witness. Statement of the respondentlaccused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the ‘ case. 4. Counsel for the~appellantlState submits that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused for the offence under section 25 ' and 27 of the Arms Act but ignoring’the same and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondent, it has fallen in a grave legal error. He submits that the Court below should, have given some more opportunity to the prosecution to lead its evidence. / :l l x \ 3 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondentlaccuse supports the Impugned judgment and submlts that unless there Is any perversnty m the fmdmgs recorded by the Court below no t Interference thereWIth should be made. Thts apart, he submits that l 22 opportunities were given to the prosecution to lead its evidence j but it has utterly failed to do so and ultimately the Court below was l left with no other option but to acquit the respondent/accused of the charge levelled against him. B.‘ From the record it is clear that the prosecution had got t sufficient opportunity but in spite of this it has not bothered to lead its evidence and in this view of the matter the Court below appears to be fully justified in acquitting the respondent of the charge leveled against him by the judgment impugned. 7. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. lt is accordingly dismissed. , // ‘\ Sdl— ‘2 Pntmker Diwaker /r ,_..’—/ J dge ’k d