N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATV BILASPU HHATTISGAR CQUITTAL APPEAL No. ) 3 (a OF 201 1 Petitionerl Complainant m. Na$€2§ hasentad by shri I] Hated........../.o’i ‘ ? i Ku. Parwati Manikpun: D/o ; Gopaldas, aged about 21 I years, R/o Civil Lines, Simga, Police Station 8c Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (CG). Versus i, MW Bhagwan Das, S/o Aamoldas Accused Manikpuri, aged about 4O years. Poshan Das, S/o Aamoldas L Manikpuri, aged about 25 ’ years. Both are residents of village Civil Lines, Simga, Police Station Simga, District Raipur (CG). W r CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, y’ y V) RH ..7_. .. I RI . CH A WWW immm g Bl Hon’ble ShrinJusiic’e Pres? ’ - 02 1i 2011 Shrl \i R Txwan and Shn V K Shn SK. Mishra, Panel Lawye Learned counsél 'forvthe app againsf judgment of acquiftal appea Section 372‘of CrPL; chauenging tr the trial Court and amrmed‘by the ap‘ appealable‘.’”—i r In th‘é" ”obinibn of ihis Coud Cr P C has been exhausted bv fulma .Ihe same orowsmn would not be attr Hlah Coud AI fhis staae learned counsel tor the aooellant seeks oermtssron of the Court to Withdraw this acouittal anfieal under Section 372 of Cr P C With liberty to move appropriate proceedinos before the Hioh Court to challenge the impugned order. He also prays. for return ot certified copy or the impugned‘order. Prayer allowed This acquittal appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as ”aforesaid . Cedined copy be returned on impugned order. i Prashaot V . Kumatf sow ,Iyiishro y k Judge anr Kumar Mishra Agrewal, counsel for the appellant. rfor the State. allanf submits that this appeal is not i but in fact this is an appeal under e adequacy ofsentenced imposed by oetlate Court and as such this order is once powers under Section 372 of. an appeal before the $essions Court acted for tiling the appeai agam m the appellant supplying Xerox copy of the / f