n ^• ^iljt iiaa BSI ai • »inc Bench.CCFimina^ IN THE - HIGH a31.ft^'-Qr;M&,cm^_iWiUi tU AT' JABALP0R:. CRIHINALAPPEAL N0. • 1 5 £-7 /1997* tSf ©'" APEELUH'F;- ^f -!.feefe-I "^PONIERTS: TIffi STATE QS"'K. THROOQr'. •' -POLIGE STATIOH'; SONGAQARH. • :;-?ERSUS-^ < : : • . feABHAT KUIffiR S/0 .R&GHQMyf HAB3BIYA, :.AGED 28 •YEARS, •R/©DH&RA, POLIGE:SIAIIOH-; WICTARQARH, BISTR.ICT -RA JNA<}GQAOS -*—"••••^dvocet* • F0E 'XEAIE .ro;-AEFEA£ BSISR; SECTISN 578C:3). GR.P..C. "SSAL'MStgMMMry^^M.P^..-. • .; ,-—..X^,—-— ^ >. / lidt ..;:1; 1-i SB : HON'BLS MR. JU8TICE PmTISKER DIWAKBR SB : HOS'BLE »IR.JUSTICE PRITISKBR DIWAKBR APPUCANT CR.A. N0. 1367/1997 State of M.P. versus . .Prabhat Kumar Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy.G.A. forthe State/applicant. Shri Shakti Raj Siuha, counsel for fhe respondeut. APPUCATION FOR ORANT OF LEAVB TO APPEALU/S 378(31 AND MEMOOP APPBAL U/S 378(1} QF THB CR.P.C. Tbe present appeal arises out of fhe impugaed judgment dated 29.10.1996 passed by fhe Judicial Magisteate First Class, Dongai^arh in Cr. Case No. 530/1993 whereby ffae accused/respondent has been acquitted for the ofiFence under SecUons 39 offhe Electricily Act& 379 ofthe IPC. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are fhat on 19.7.93, Assistaat Lineinau of the M.P. Elcctrici^ Board had gone to record the reading ofthe ineter and found that fhe seal and glass offhe lueter was broken. He has further noticed certatn ofher defaults in. the Bieter and ftierefore fhe iiiatter was reported by him to the departnient aud afier investigation PIR Ex.P/7 was registered against fhe respondent. B 3. In ^ttpport of its case, the prosecution has examiaed seven witdesses, Statem.ent of fhe accused person was also recorded underSection 313 Cr.P.C. ia which be denied the chai^es leveUed ^airist Mm and pleaded his ituiocence and false unpUcation in fhe case. 4, After hearing the partles, the tnal Court has acquitted fhe accusgd/respondeutfcrthe offence as inentionfid above. Heace tbe preseiit a^)peal. - . | >-o-.-ff"- ^ ^' t^t^^ / S""vi4'\ "?»!. v s 5. Contention of Shri Mishra, is fhat despite avai]abi]ily of sufficient evidence on record, fhe Court below has erred in law in acquitting fhe acused/respondent. 6. Onfhe otherhand supportit^fhe impiignedjudgment ithas been subnutted by the counsel for fhe respondent tliat fhe iaipugaed judgment is in accord^nce wifh ]aw aad there is no iUegality in the satue. 7. I have heard fhe parties aad perused fhe judgment impugned and inaterial available on record. After due appreciation of evidence as adduced by fhe prosecution, fhe Court below has acqzutted fhe respondent on the ground fhat fhe Assistaut Engineer was not einpowered to enquire fhe niatter aad it is fhe line iuspector who was: einpowcred to prosecute fhe respondent. Furfher fhe Court below has com.e to the conclusion that even the panchnama of fb.e case was not prepared and therefore fhe respondent is entifled for acquittal. 8. I fiiid no reason to interfere ia fhe judgment of acquittal particulady fhe view taken by fhe court belcw. It is a Setfled position of law in relatioii to cases aganist acquittal, in a petition against acquittal if Iwo views are possible on the basis of ffae evidence led by the prosecution aad fhe trial Court taldng one view favoured fkie accused, reversion of fhe fiiidings of acqiuttal by the appeUate Court taldng the dlher possibte view iato consideration te not permissible ia law. This Coiut is of fhe view fhat the judgiaent impugned/acquittm.g fhe respondent/accused of the offence as aBeged- s^ just aad proper. Aceordiagly, the leave as sought for by the appMcant/State.for registration of appeal agaiast fhe judgiaent ofaequittalis heicby refiised. j Srf< PritinkerDiwalter Jadge