HIéH CQURT OF €HHATTISGARH AT BILAS?UR ¢r.M.P.N9 331 af 2068 Assistan't Engineer, Chha‘rfEgarh 51mg Eiec‘h‘icify Eoard, $amn9ari’1, Tahsii 5arangarh, Disfric? Raigar‘n (6.6.). Versus Respanden? Summit-a. Kumar Sahu San of Shri Accused person Banshidhar Sahu, age about 3§ years, 'Reséa‘enf of Viiiage Chafipaii Samngarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distric? Raigarh {C(52) (Appiicafion fer grunt of leave To appeal under seci’inn 3.78 (4) of The Cr.P.C.) ($3: Hen‘bie Mr.T.P; shama, J.) Present Mr. M'D.Sharma, counsel for the appellant ‘Eéé;;eg§:9-~og. ‘-_. 3. Learned counsel for fhe oopellen'!‘ submi‘l’s Ellie? the respondem’ hes no‘l denied Thof he was no? owner of 'l'he lend and has no'l installed fhe pumpf 4i The evidence odduoed or! behalf of ‘l'he complainant reveals Tho? e'l' the time of inspection, ‘lhe respondenl' was no? presen? in ‘l’l'ie field The somploinsn'l hos no? examined ‘H'ie wi‘messes who were present on ‘lhe field ond‘were using electricify. .. QRDER (Passed 21” (Passed ar: Janmry, 2019) 1. This is {m agpHcafion under Section 37$ (4) 9f Cr.P.C. agamsf The judgment 9f acqui'rta! dafed Zé,10.2007 passed by ‘rhe Special Judga constimwd under Eiec'h‘iciiy Act, 2003, Raigarh, in $pecia! Case Na,78/2007, whereby learnad Special Judge has acquitted ‘l‘he respendent of the char-92 of 5ection 135 of 1’he 2, I have heard learned counsel for ‘l‘he Qppellum and perused we lmpugaed judgmen‘l' end record 9f the (bur? below. gK ~2~ 5 In thg absence 9f materia§ evidence agains‘t the respandeni', “we Caurt belaw has righily acquitted fhe respimdent I do no? find any casa for gram Qf leave +9 appeal agaim? #he judgmen‘? of agquitfai, Cansequen‘riy, the applicatian is rejgcfed. : T. P. Sharma I Judge Bl—