IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 348 of 2008. Date of decision: 6.6.2008. State of H.P. ….. Petitioner. Vs. Madan Lal …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur in Criminal Case No. 10-II-2007 acquitting the respondent, under Section 279 IPC arising out of case FIR No. 186/2006. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW 4 Nanak Chand complainant on 23.10.2006 was coming from Barthin to Bijhari in maruti car bearing registration No. HP-23B-1034 and at about 3.45 p.m. at place Sanghian- da- Tiala, bus bearing registration No. HP- 21A-0401 came from Bijhari side, which was being driven by the respondent in high speed in rash and negligent manner. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… respondent could not control the bus and it struck against the driver side of the car of the complainant. The respondent left the bus and ran away from the spot, but no-one had sustained injuries in the accident. The mater was reported to the police and the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr. P. C., and thereupon FIR Ex. PW 9/A was registered. The vehicles were taken into possession and their mechanical reports were also obtained. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent under Section 279 IPC. The learned trial Magistrate, after conclusion of the trial, acquitted the respondent, hence this petition seeking leave to file an appeal. 3. Heard and perused the record. The learned trial Magistrate has noticed that complainant PW 4 Nanak Chand has stated that on 23.10.2006 at place Bihru, bus bearing registration No. HP-21A-0401 came from Bijhari in high speed and struck against the car of the complainant. In the impugned judgement it has also been noticed that complainant in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 4/A has stated that accident took place near Sanghian- da- Tiala. PW 4 in his statement has stated that accident took place at Bihru. He has shown his ignorance that Bihru is at a distance of five kilometers from Sanghian- da- Tiala. The complainant has further stated that police came on the spot on the same day and recorded his statement, whereas the Investigating Officer has stated that entire investigation was conducted on 24.10.2006. 4. PW 1 Milkhi Ram has stated that on 24.10.2006, he was travelling in maruti car and accident took place at about 3.45 p.m. at …3… Sanghian- da- Tiala. In cross examination, he has again repeated that accident took place on 24.10.2006. He has further deposed that no one has witnessed the occurrence except the said witness, as noticed by the learned trial Magistrate in the impugned judgement. This witness has contradicted the prosecution case, according to which accident took place on 23.10.2006 and as per PW 1 accident took place on 24.10.2006. The Investigating Officer has stated that car remained with the complainant after the accident before it was taken into possession during investigation. Therefore, the learned trial Magistrate has rightly observed that possibility of removing the car from the spot by the complainant cannot be ruled out. The learned trial Magistrate has taken a possible view on the basis of material on record, as discussed in the impugned judgement. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for grant of leave to file an appeal. Hence, petition is dismissed. June 6, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.