<^R- ^....••^^A -¥:M?-.. f"€^ teis<*i f'-J'^ >.'\'.' •^^w: @ MI6H COURT OF CHHATriS@ARH .4T BIL^SPUR SJF^te Bench s Honbjg .Wr. Jusfjee Pritinker D'WQke" Jrimina! Awe-ol No- 556 of 1997 :LL4NT Tne Stafe af Ms.dhva Pradesh khdeo, son of Umed Lohar Shriyastava, counsel for the -State/appeilant. Shri Shri Rakesh bubey,counsei for the respondent. CKI^WAi. APPEAt. UNDER SECTEON 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and order- dsted 09.01.1996 passed by Judicia! .V.agistrate, First C!o.ss, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnmdgaon in Criminal Case No. 398/1995 acquitting th.e respondent/accused for the ajjeged offence.s punishable under Sections 25 4 27 of the Arms Act. ^ig:is Case of the prosecution in brief is th.at on 21.12.1989 r-eceiving Information from the informo.nt two muzzje guns and certo.in other reiated squipments were selzed from the accused/respondent. Further case of the pr'osecution is that the accused/respondent was working as Biacksmith and used to make such typs of weo.pons. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused wos o.lso recordsd under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! the charqe. leveilsd aqo.int innocence and faise implication in the case. ^\ !s-&I't-i^i^^N^9 4. By the impugned judgment ths court below has acquitted the responderst/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 25 &. 27 of the Arms Act. Hence this m below has the res; material avai! for the appeliant/State submits that the court itted o. serious error in awarding acquitta! to despite there being sufficient le on record callinq for his conviction. 6. On the other hsnd, counsei for the respondent ajpports the impugned judgment and submits that th< acquittal is in accordance with law because- faited to proye its case beyond reasonoble 7. I have heard counse! for the porties and perused the material ayallable on record. 8. -Seizure witnesses namely ^ayaram (PW-1) &. (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case and ho.ve declar-ed hostile. 9. Considering the statements of material ayailable on record, the conclusion that the prosecution hss case beyond ai! reasonable doubts; entitled for acquitto.1. igge witnesses and other had arrived to a been abie to prove its respondent/accused is 10. After heoring counsel for the pari'ies and going through the evidence availabie on record and being very much conscious of the existing iegal position that in a case against ocquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence !ed by the prosecution ceid the tria! Court- taking one viei'v favourable to the accused, revsrsion of the findings of acquittal by the le view into v» nr£S%'-'ft^.'g,< 4, consideration, is not permissib!®in law. this Court- is visw that the judgment impugned acquitting the r'es{ accussd of the offence punishabie under Sections 25 the Arms Act, is Just ond proper and does rsot ca!! for interference by this Court. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in present case and the same is dismissed accordingiy. Sd/- 27 of any