jJtS'y~o\ru'\^\j^if\}'^^^^-\,r^j^-<^^ ^ €r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH ^^ ^«c,nn^ Single Berich ^R.C. N0. CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. OF 200( OFf 2005 Appellant Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, P.S. Chirimiri District- Koriya (C.G) Versus Resoondent ^^•^^-^ ,i ^n..... —^"'o^A.^^" '^J^^^'^V^."^6 Amrendra Pandey, S/o RamjiPandey, Aged about 40 years, R/o Tikrapara,! Bada Bazar, Chirimiri, Distt. Koria (CG) ^ V>0 APPLICATION FOR GRANJ-OF LEAVElTO APPEAL t.^lDER SECTION 378r3fT^ND MEMOkANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION l378nr(QF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 376 of 2009 APPLICANT StateofChhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENT Amrendra Pandey. '^--^s^^ Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the applicant/State. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (11 .11.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.4.2005 pa^sed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh in Criminal Case No. 427/1994 acquitting the respondent of the offence under sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penalcode. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 5.12.1992 a written report was lodged by Shrinivas Sharma alteging that when he was working as Revenue Inspector in the office of Special Area Development Authority, Kurasiya, respondenVaccused entered the premises of his workplace and abused and threatened him. 3. Counsel for the applicanVState submits that the Court below has committed a serious error in awarding acquittal to the respondenVaccused despite there being sufficient material available on record calling for his conviction. 4. Prosecution has examined 02 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the respondents/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. Perusal of the material available on record reveals that both the witnesses examined bythe prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution as they have stated that they have not seen the incident. Complainant in the case has not been examined though several opportunities were given to him for that. 6. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State and considering the material available on record as well as the etaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences under sections 186and 353 of the Indian Penal code. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicanVState for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge