000061 253 , Criminal Appeal No. R‘3’7 /973 THEE-EIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR ‘ > ‘ EJFZQ’ 7 x Misc cm .Case N0. 1:166 M79? W ‘ 3%; J7 . gléigt hilt}: (knmmai) I I IHIIIH IIHHHHHllllllllll Appella?t : ‘State of Maahya Prades} Kach rufa us- / occupation! cultivatar, R/o Gumawara ‘ Kawardha/x.s. Kawaraha B1$tt. Rajnand ’R’eagondentg ) s Sfé weranlal, aged 46 years, MS!“ Wwmtk .. {gagglcwiom FORLEAVE To AwEAL 11/3 37834 Cr.P.C. AND m. “mmwnwmé WPAAL U/s 378(1) Cr.P.c. Asamsm ACQUHTAL. i @9"? . Being aggrleved by the Judgment passed by the meAQJMJ‘ C. Bemetra Blstt wasgmir in Cr.Case No 6/9 ~ u s3 w r. State Vs- Kacbrulalhon S/Z/ begs to prefer this aepeal against acqulttal on the following grounés N ’ ga 2 éA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR VSingie Bench : Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Prifinker- Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 237 Qf 1998 APPELLANT The Stmg 9f Madhyg Pradesh Versus RESPONDENT Kachr-ulal s/o Poomnla! Shri Praveen Dos, Dy. Govj. Advocate for the Sfa're. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. V; J U D 6 M E N T (02. o7. 2010) Priesenf aplieal arises om of fhe impugned judgmem' and/ arder dated 5.2.1997 passed by Judicial Magisfr‘a‘le, First Class, Bemefar'a in Criminal Case No. 06/1992 acquitiing The respondeni/accused af the alleged offence punishable under Sectian 380 of the Indian Pena! Code. 2. i Brief facts of the case are that on 27.8,1991 FIR. (EgP—ll) was lodged by Tahsildar, Saja alleging that on 27.}84991 the respondent/accused came to the affice of Tahsildar, Saja and had asked for the inspection of the record of Revenue Case No. 6-A/68. It is aileged that the said record was handed over- to him by Nayab Najir and in the meanwhile i the mid Nayab Najir was busy in some other official work. It is further alleged that after sometime the record was found missing and even the respondent/accused was also absconding. 3 So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution ‘ has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. ' Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under I Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which h - e denied The charge Ieveiled against him and mended his innocence and false implica’rion in the case. That apart wifnesses nameiy Dr. R.K. Nag (DW-1) dz Jai Chandra Jain (DW-Z) have alSo been examined by the defence in support af iis case. 4. By i'he impugned judgmenf The courf below has acqui‘h‘ed The respondent of the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Hen‘ce this petition. 5““ Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of material available on record, the court beicw ought to have Aconvicted‘the accused/respondent. 6. I have heard counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. From the record it appears that prosecution has utterly failed to prove that it is the respondent/accused who had committed the offence of theft and had taken the record from the court of Tahsiidar. It appears from the record that merely on the basis of suspicion, the respondent was prosecuted. Moreover, the entire evidence has been elaborately considered by the court below while passing the impugned judgment. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through fhe evidence available on record and being very much conscious l i f of the existing legal position thatin a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of theevidence led by the ‘ prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favourable to i the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by thel appellate Court taking the other possible view into‘ l ’