IN THE HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISOARH AT BTLARPIJR ^^ ^ Cr. A. No. OF 2004 0-7 —••^^ , ..^•l&:^";, |ed"^--^^-^^oc^ s^---""' ....•-•••" h"""""^ c.ioo.^! Responde& "^t State of Chhatdsgarh Throzigh ;PoUce Station; Jagdalpui-(CG) VERSUS Smt. TausifJahan Wife of Dasaruddiai Mijisaltxiaii^ Aged about 26 years, R/o Prejarpur, Distt : Bastar (CG) APPLICAION FOE-QRANT OP LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 f3f AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECriON 378 (f) OKTHE COUE OF CK1M1MAL PROCEDURE. 1973 ^L t]'n^ ^^y'^' HIQH COVKrOP CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8POR SB : HOrBLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR ^- ACO.A.NO. 35/2009 ^^ •^...^' ;.^'..-L: APPLICANT RBSPOMDBWT8 versus State of ChJiattisgarIi Stnt TausifJahan ShriVwek Sharma, P,L. forthe State/appMcaat Shri Soxoinafh Verma, coiiasel for fhe respondent. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF U&AVB TO APPBAI, UNDBR SBCTION 37801 AMFD MBMORAUm?UM OP APPBAL UIIDBRBECTION 378(11 OF THB CR.P.<5. ORDBR (29.03.2010) The present petition is directed agsdnst fhe impugned judgment dated 22.3.2004 passedbyfhe Cbief Judieial Magistorate, Jag^lalpiir m Cr. Case No. 173/95 wfaereby tbe accused/respondent has been acqiiitted for thie offenoe iiader Section 420 offhe Indian Penal Code, 2, Brief facts of the case are 13iat on Itie basis ofwriten report PIR was rcgistercd against fhe accused/respo&dent on 1.12.94 allegmg in it fhat fhe accused/rcapondent had taken Rs. 10,000 fi?om one Ku. Madhmaalti Das. (RW.-2) after assurmg her tfaat she vsdiU be provided job ia fhe oflBce of S.D.M, It is further atteged that mollxer <rf Ku.Radhmi Bala Das (P.W.-l) & Ku. Madhu Malti Das (P.W.-2) namely Smt Prcmlata Das faad obtaiaed Rs, 10,0000 after ptedgmg her oraameiits aad fhe said amount wos givea to fhe accused/rcspondent but ao job could be provided by her aiid fhe said axaount was also not refiinded. 3. So as to hold fhe accused/appellaiit guitty fhe prosecution has exainmied 7 witnesses. Statemcnt of the accused/appeUant was also recorded under Secdon 318 of the Code of Crimmal Pxxxsedure ia which ste denied fhe charges leveUed asainst her and pleaded faer mnocenoe aad 'l^-.- .•.. false implication in fhe case. This apart, oaie defence iidttiess has also been exami&ed by her ia support of its case, 4, After hearh^ counsel for fhe pardes, fhe Court below has acquitted fhe accused/respondent Hence this petitiott. <. t 5. Contention of Shri Sharma, couixBel fi>r tlie applicaat/State is fhat despite ffae fact fhat there is enotigh evidence avaOable on record fhe Coiul below bas errcd ia law ia acquitting tfae accused/respoiident He sufoxii&te that by giviag peryerse fiboiding fhe Court below has acquitted the respondent. 6. Oii fhe other hand counsel fof the resipoiadeiit submits fhat fhe mipu^ied order and judgment is m accordance wifh law aad there is no iafitmily ta fhe same. He submite that even otlierwise also fhe judgaxient @f acquittal cacuaot be mterfisred witfa iialess the ofiBfeaces are found to be penrerse, 7. I have heard couasel for fhe particss a&d perused ttie record. From fhe statements ofKu. Rashmi Bsda Das (P.W.-l), Ku. Madhu Malti Das (P.W.-2) 8& Smt. Premlata Das (P.W.-3) it appears that Rs. 10,000 was given to the accused/respondent but fhere fe no evfelence on recoid as to before whom the said amoiint was demaridied by tihae rcspondent aad m whose presence fhe same was givea. Ayyub @ Banshi (RW.-4) who is one of ftae relative of fhe complamaat hoa stated fhat it is he who had arrai%ed fhe moncy after pledging fhe omaments of his wifis^ PujBhpteAa whereas Smt Premlata Das (P.W.-3) has stated fhat it is she who had pledged her oraamente aad then handed over the said amount to the accused/respondeiit The seaziire witoesses of the so caUed pledged oraiameiits have not supported ffae piDsecution case and have been declarcd hostite, •.'=--'- 8, In the present case, FIR has been lodged by Ku, Rashmi Bala (P.W.-l) whereas the money was demaiided fiiom Ku. Madhu Malti Das. That apart, fhere are material contradictions in fhe statement ofthe prosecution witaesses most iaiportanfly fhe iavestigating Offl&cer has not beea exaniined by fhe prosecution and fhere is no justiification for fhe same. On fhe contraiy fhe defenoe wituess ChEoadra Nandi (D.W.-l) has stated that fhere was aomc poUtical rivaliy between Ku. Madhu Malti Das (P.W.-2) aad accused/respondeut and fherelfore a false case has beea lodged agaiast fhe respondent 9. Considermg the entire matertel avaUable on record and aftcr due appreciation offhe same, fhe Oourt below has arrived to a particular conclusion of acqmttictg fhe respondent 10. I flaid no rcason to mterfere in the judgiaent of acquittal particularly fhe view taken by fhe court below which is one of the possible view. It is a settted position of law in relation to cases agamst acquittal, ia a petition agaiast acquittal iftwo views arc possible 0x1 tibie basis oftiie evidence led by fhe prosecution and the trial Oourt takiag one view favoured fhe accused, reversion ofthe fibadiags of acqidttal by fhe appeUate Court takiag fhe cAher possible view into consideration is not permissible in law, fhis Coiirt is of the view fhat fhe judgmcnt impi^ncd acquittmg fhe rcspondent/accused of fhe offence is justt aad proper, Accoidiagly, fhe leavc a8 sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against fhe judgmdit of acqufttal is hereby refiised, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge