IN 2HE HIGH COUfiT OF JUDICATUKE-K.e.AT JAEALPUR ~~"'1- /97/ tasC.CRI.CASE KO "s.iu, vs CRIMZHAL APPEAI. N0..1H>:>S-. /97 KPPSLLSSTs State of Madbya Pradesh Vs. k- ^^w: igj-,..^f^SSSFOSDSS TS: Kl,.jrj7'"^ f^^'fi'sssss •^.t~li/> • J CF0000061435 Rajsrain riishra S/o fiamcharan Mishra aged 40 years. Depot Incharge,fian.lganj. Oistt.Kajnandgaon. .,- ."iPPLICATICN U/S 378 (iii) POR LEAVE TD•&FPEAL AGAINST ACQUIITAL ftHD M.SO - APPEAL U/S 378(i) ^Cr.p.C. AGAINST SCBUITTAL t^fe^ '".': jt-d's^wi^^'^.yw^w^^^^n.'^^'sa.ic^-iS^sHikvik"y" ._..;;.-r:S'f-^iE^<ei^?'-»aa..:-;g.£;:-.S '^'a'<5TW;K^ •;':""!s>3 1 l^s-.:"-'% ^ I. . J J '%, 'S]K.*S<'^ ,'. '%^s^~ ""!'7i<?; y) , Mr. Jvstjce Prltjn.Scer Djwateer^ N0. 1405 of 1997 State of Madhva Pradesh VERSUS Shri Pravin Das, Dy. G,A. for the Stste Shri Vivsk Shrivastava, courisei for ths ionaenc. rt -f <^^-us •s '*. Tne oresent sppeal arises out of the uidament ant dafced 28.10.1996 passed' by Juo'idal Magistrate Rrst Qass, Dongargarh, in Crimjnaf Case No. 530/o8 acqultting the respondent of the offence under Sections 379 of IPC and 39 of the Efectricjty Act. 2. Brief facts of tne case are that aft@r receivinq secret information to the effect shat the respondent is indulged in theft of electriclty in his government quartar, nls house was Inspectsd and it was found that he was yslng electr'city directiy from electrjc poie without any per-nission from State Electric Board and was ajso.usina eiectricai appiiances in an Htegal manner. Report was iodged by the Divjsional Engineer Ganesh Shankar Deshpandey .(PW-7) to the concerned oolice statlon vide Ex. P-6. After compietion of investigation, charce sheet was filed on 30.12,1988 aoa'nst the respondent for th< offence under Sections 379 of IPC and 39 of the Electrtcity e.ff- 3. So as to hoid the has examined 07 wltn of the accused/respor 313 c.f the Code of Cri crtarges leveiled agair fa!se jmplicatjon m th< —2;- iccused/respondent guiity. ssses in suooort or jts case. spondent was atso recorded under section iure in which he denied the teaded his innocence nrt e case, 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court t the accused/respondent of ali the cnaroes iev him, hence,the R Fnni >^U S ! ic Court bi lainst '• the Searned counsel for the State is th; has erred j.n aDpre.cfatj.na ffis evidence me accused/respondent of the offence mentionec.' above, 6. On the other hand supporting c has been argued by the iearned counsel for the respond that in fche case in hand, the compjaint was j.nstituted by Divisiona!. Engineer who was not empowered under Section of the Electricity Act whereas it ought to have in'tiated oy Eisctrica! Inspector OF the pe-son ernpowered by him, submlts that onty altegation against the respondent is that haid committed theft of e'ectriclty to the tune of Rs, 1184 ultimateSy the said amount was deposjted by fcne respon; He further submits that the inddent took p;ace on 15.11,' i.e. more than 22 yea.rs back, no usefui purpose would servsd in sendino the responcfent to jai!. tne be 7. After due appredat.ion of evie arriyed' to a partlcuiar concli accused./respondent and I flnd no r same. Thus. after going through record and bei.na verv much cons1 a, °court beiow has acouitti the materic! avaiSable lous or trte existjna i6 -/">, 1&. -3- position that in an appeaS a( possibte on the of ev'der the trla! Court taklng one view Court is of the consldered !: acqujttat if two vjews are led by the orosecution and /oured the resi findi.ngs of acquittal by the appellate plausibie view snto consideratson.. js not i t.aMi therefore the judgment jmpuaned accused/respondent of thc offence under Sect and 39 of the Electrlclty Act, is just and p-oF warrant any interference by this Court, appeal being without substance js (jable to bs S 37 r^ h^ r Of IPC imjssed. It is iccordjnaly di Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker V3'^