IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cri. A. No. APPELLANT ^,'fffc-^ Arivccate R.to.B-^CJ) ^ ^\ TOON-APPELLANT CRESPONDENT) OF 2004 The State ofChhattisgarh Through : ST & SC Police Station BiIaspur(CG) VERSUS Omprakash Dubey S/o Ramsnehi Age about 38 years. R/'o Village Sarserii. Police Station Hirri, Distt : Bilaspur (CG). APPLICATION FOR GRAWF OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378a<f3>-AND MEMO OF APPEAL. UNDER SECTION 378 fH OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. COURT OF CMHATTlSfiARN VtT BIIASPUR Single Bench : Hon'bte Mr. Jusfrice Prttinker Dfiiwto* Acauinal ADpealNo. Ulflf 2009 APPELb^NT R6SPON&ENT The StGte of Chhottisgarh Vwsus OmprakashDubey Shrl Vivek Sharma, M»for the State/cypetlant. Shri Vivek Kumar Pandey, counsel for the responderrt'/accused. APPUCATION FOft 6RANT OF LEAV6 TO APP6AL UN&©1 SECTION 378 O^ OF THE CQOE OF CRIMINAL PftOCE&URE JU&6EMEISTT (15.03.2011) The present appeol arises out of the impugned Judgmenf dnd order doted 18.11.2003 passed by Chief JudJcfdl Magistrate?, Biiaspur 1n Criminal Case No. 4148/2003 acqyittthg the respondent/accused of the offence punishabj^ under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are thcri- on the boisis of wntten report (Ex.P-1) lodged by Maniram (PW-l), F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) wos registered against the accused/ respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420; 468 and 471 of the Indlan Penal Gode.It is alleged by the complajncnt Maniram (PW-1) thot the domicile certificate doted 14.10.t993 (Ex;P-13) obtQined by the respondent/acci^ed has been obtained by playjng fraud, though the respondent/accused is not the resjdent of village SQrsainJ but yet the domicilecerrtficote has been obtained in respect of the said vJJIage. After completion of investigation challm was filed on 9.10.1995 under Sections 420,468 and 471 of the Indioin P^iat Code. White framing the charge, leamed triaj Judge has framed the charge under Sectlon 420 of the Indian Penat Code. 3. In order to prove th®guilt of the re^xmdent/acGUsed the prosecution has examined as mcny os 19 wN'nesses in support of its case. Statemerrt' of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Sectton 313 of the Code of Crimhial Procedur®in which he denied the charges leveled ogalnfft him and pleaded his innocence ond false implicort-ion m the case. 4. By the Judgment impugned the court- betow has oicqyitted the respondent/accused of the offenc® punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penat Code. HenGethisappeeil. 5. Counsef for the appeltant/State submits thot pposecution has est'oblished the fact thdt the accused/responctent had obtained forged domicile cert'ifjcctt'e showing him to be a resident of village Sarseni, though in fact he is resident of village Bahtarai. 6. On the other hand, Gounsel for the pespondent/accused submits thot acquittaj of th® respondent ts <trictly in accordonce with law. He submits that the proseeution has failed to prove thot the domicile certificate (Ex.P-13) is a forged document. He further submits that the ortgfnat domicile certificate of the respondent/ocaised hos not been produced before the trial Court. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the mfliterial availabte on record. 8. From the perusal of the evidence it is qsparent thcrt- there is absolutely no evidence pn rccord to show that the domicile certtficote issued in favour of the N^- ^ respondent/occused is a forged documwt. Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the said document to be forged one. Moreover, entire evidence has been duty considered by the courl- below whlle passing the impugned order wd arnving toa particutar conclusion thot the prosecutjon ho® not been able to prove its case beyond ail rec®onflA»ledoubts, the pespondent/accused Is entitled for oc(|uitl'al. 9. After heoring counsel forthe appellant ond considering the materiaj available on record os well as the eteborate judgment impugned and being very much conscious of the existing legal position thflrt' in an appeal againsrt' acquittal if two views are possible on the basts of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Courl' token one view favoured the accused. taktng the other pJQusible view into c^nsJclenation, is not permissible in law and therefore this Court' is of the considered opinion that the judgment impvgned acquitting tte respondent/accused of the offence under Section 420 of the Indioin Penal Code, is just and proper ond does notwarrent any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substonce is liable to be dtsmissed. It is accopdingly dismissed. Pritinker Diwaker Judge