•^•^^ 'iiSSi0^"1' ViSM ww:.:^ ;^ ^;raBHi?OISS^5?'i:9J ^MISC. 'CRI^INAX. -G^SE%».^.'%..^m.l9< CMMIKAL 'APEE.4L: W^ -"^.-Ogv.199^ ww^^ y^' ^ '^'^Mys .•.^v^' A^PELLANT .$. • -The State:l:.of IEla<ahya^i»aQ.esh^1 : W<-':''\,:,6':%;;:'^.} .- "^ers^a^ .'•^"^•'l^^..-1:;'^;./!'^11;;":^/'^'1'. Ss 1 • Indramani SOEL af Visli^i^tf& BEas&ad Dwivedi, a^ed 55 y^ars, re£iden|?of 1®(,^S'treet-8, ,Sector' 4y'^Bhilai "las'briQC.'D^^. P<:)':':^: 2, Sa3a» Singh, son o^f Bailladur'Stngb.,^ ?ged 49 years, resident of Sbanfinagar Boad- 1, House No.415, Stipela, itii3-at Bis*i'ict Bui^ (M.P..) : '. -,:'.-,;, . .' '••:-M^M^.^ ' •/Mi^'^ APPLICATION UNI^R SECIFI©N578Ciii) FOR Q^KAEST ^JJE^VE TG APPEAL; .'. : , ..•.:--.Y..;';<:-:',..t.:;^^^ ^^' ^^?^^.^ "i\r::.'~."'.:\^^U.:^. "': ^-•••"-'^^"•^^-^**-^-w^,¥'-".,.'—<^—.- LSEC ^ APPEAL WBE&ISECIION 578(1) <^ ®ECODE % CSltffl^ PROCEBURE 197: '.^•.-.-: ^..:^. SSi '^yvs. ;p^. • '^•^: ^•••f \.'-:.;?f ^:^yv 3^-:/ Hia^ COURT OF CHH^mS^ARH AT BILASPU8'; Singie Bench •: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pntinker Dlwaker'. ^ ACQUITTAL APPE^L .No. 46 of 2009 APPLICANT RESPONDENTS The Stats of Madhya Pradesh (naw C-hhattJsgarh) Versys . ^ Indramani A another. •L^ Shri Pankaj ShrivastQva, PLfor the Stots/appiicant. Shpi .Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the respondents. Respondent No, .1 Indramani is present in person, APPLICATION FOR ^ANT OF LEAVE TO O'R DER (17.12.2009) " . With the consent of.,the'parties, the matter..is heard finaliy, Present appeol is' directed against the Judgment dated 12.3.1999 passed by .Judiclal MaQJstrte/First CJQS-S, Durg in Criminal Case No. 570/1995 whereby acquittina the respondents of the alieged offences punJshGbie.under Sectlons 379 d 409 of the Indian Pena! Code. 2. It has been informed by, th.e coun-sei for the respondents that during the pendencyof the present co.se, respondent No. 2 has expired. 3. As per the case of the prosecution on 7.12.1994 at about 4.30 pm accused persons were caught red handed when they were takjng 10 packets of Super Eiectrode Weidlng Rod from B.B.M. Store, therecfter ths FIR (Ex.P-5) was Sodged by Rupnath ASI (PWr-l).. ..;; ,,. .. ......... ...,.-..,•:,.,., T3<^SSSS^S^^: c- THH^, 4. In support of its cose, the prosecution has examined as mony as 5 witnesses. Statements of the responde-nts/accused w©realso recorde4 under Sectlon 313 of the Code. of Crlminoj Procedure in whlch they denied the chorges !eveje.d agGinst them and pleaded innocence and fGlse ImpiicGtion in the cas®. 5. Counsel for the appEicont/State submits that the court bejow has committed a serious error in o.warding acquittQJ to the respondents/accused despits there belnQ sufficjent material ovaiiabie on record CGJIinQ for th-sir convlction. 6. On the other hand, counss! for ths respondents supports the Judgment and submits that acquittal Is in accordance. wlth !aw and once the respondent No. 1 has'been acquitted, no interference 'is caiied from this Court. 7. From the statement of Rupnath (PW-1), who Is the ASI of CISF, it is cleor that he has not checked the record from'the B.B.M.. Stores o-nd the seizure was not .made in hispresence.In fact on the next do.y of the incident i.e. 8.12.1994 this witness was handed over the dieged seized articies by the Department ond in turn he gave the same in the pojice Station Bhjjai Bhatti. J. Dalai (PW-2), who is said to be the eye witness, has not support-ed the prosecution case as a whole, however, in h|s cross examlncttion he admits that on the date of incident his duty was m some other area. As per the statement of this witness, accused was caught red handed by him and one K.P. Soman/however, X.P. Somon has not been examined by the prosecution. D.B. Baghe! (PW-3) who was wprking as the Heod Store Keeper of B.B.M. Store from where the aiieged articies were stoien, has Qdmitted in his cross-examination that on the next date of the ineident when he verified the stock, the same was proper and no crticles 3.' were missing. Anand Kumar, Constabie (PW-4) has not supported the prosecution case Ali these aspects have been duly considered by the court below whiie passing the impugned judgment of acquittai. 8. After heo.rjng counsel for the parties and going through th©evidence o.voJiabie on record o.nd be-lng very much consclous of the existing jegal position that in a agajnst acquitt'd if two are possible on the ba.sls- of the evidenc®led by the prosecution and the trla! Court tGklng one yjew fayourable to the accused, reversion of the flndings of acquittai by the appeilate Court taking the other possibie view into consideratlon, is not permissible In low, this Court is of the view that the Judgment jmpugned acquitting th8 respondent/accused of theoffence punlshoble under Section under Sections 379 A 409 of the Indian Penai Code, is just ond proper and does not caii for any interference by this Court. 9. In view of the aboye factual and legd position, I do not find ony reason to interfere with the Judgment impugned. 10. The petition fails and Is accordingiy dismissed, Sd^- pritinkerDi^aker Judge ''.^•M^3SS^ •^SSiii.