^rr-)p ss^l (• o CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. ^ State of Chhattisgarh Throush the Station House .;A^\y ^^-CC- Officer,P.S. Farasgaon, Distt rlwxy/ ^.^'[^•""^Bastar (CG) ^<^^"y •',. .^^lt',v^ 0-" w y." 'li.' •^- ^ 'VERSUS Nandita Choudhary, D/o A. B. Choudhary, R/o Near Bus Stand, Jagadapur, Distt Bastar (CG) ^' APPLICATION FOR GRANT.OF 1SAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3f^AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1»<IFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. /VL t.m; ?T3 '^ &S3 .^£5 >i.L,^l-^?arV:K Sjngie Bsnch': Hon'bie AAr. Justic®Pritinter Diwake" i.P. Ne. ;ni o ^-t^it^ of f4hh^+t1.??^^.rh ^l S -^f S/ j kto?r.! ^ i ;^i ; s ^•^^^!'-^ ^ ^ tf Ncndita Choudhcry, D/o A.B. nouanary iA". Vaibhc A. Soverdhan, PL for the Stcte/apo'Jcant. SANT OF tEAVE TO UNDER 'B (3) AND M@, ^^^gS^^I^ ilj. ^SS .^E'SE:A| 4l^,?.T%s.n 'S5;>WTT.fn.k; ^TS /^'''i sf^e^K^i^ii^vr^ ^r ^rr.s^aB Vs'^wSK ^s^-ij.^i"^ •s^Q i.^.j ?~ .-^. (,UW .•'ysii-'t K.a'iM BOC-F -S_ft /•fl r"; ^.;3 '"^^.•s ^'1 ^ U<^ .f^'S ^ » a ii Mssrrf oi^ ccmisslon. The pr'esent petition is directgd agcinst the 'iT'pugned anc ords" dated 7.2.2006 passed by Judicid F'i^st Qoss, KQndagoQn i" Criminai Case Mo.. 99/199^ whsrsbv ocGuitt!no ths r^^Qondsnt/Gccu^ed uftds.p Sections 409.420 A 467 of the Indian Penai Cods. 2^ Bri©T^o.cts Oi th^ co.s's- GFS thot on th'B bc^is c'f writtsn report (Ex.P-14) dated 14.5.t986 Iqciged by the Commissioner, 1 Bastar Division, the matter was enquired ond on 4.6.1985 F.I.R. (Ex.P-15) wos "egistered agclnst the respondent/accused under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 471-A of the Zndian Pena! Code. Allegation against the respondent/accused is that at the "eievant time she was workina as Proiect Officer Farasgaon and committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by manipuiating the officia! record by showing forged entry i.n the sdary document and thereby drawing her saio.ry twice, the saiary of Angcsnwadi worker hos bee" shown to be withdrawn but in fdct the same was not Qiven to them and f ' s % ^ 'y^'Sifssss^" Y thereby the total amount of fts. 25,442.25 have been misappropriated by her. 3. So as to hoid the accused/respondent gui!ty, prosecution has examined as rnany os 8 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure in which she denisd the charges ieyeHe.d against her and p'eaded her innocence and faiss implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the State/appeiiant submits that on the basis of eyidence as adduced by the prosecution, the court belov,' ought to have convicted the accused/respondent. He submits that there is enough moteriai avaiiable- on "ecord warrantinq convictio" of the respondent/accused. h.eard counsei for th.e State/appeiiant and reria! avaiiabie on record inciudinq iudament 'J'" ~"1^"' I have perused the impugnsd. 6. From the record it is c!ear that iodger of the F.1.R. namely J.S. Kapasi, Commissioner, Ba-star Division has not been examined by the prosecution. It is o.iso apparent from the stc.tsment of Investigating Office" ,*Ar. ,Ani! Kumor Pc'Fhab (PW-7) th.at the facts about th.e withdrawa! of the saiary twice by ths respondent/accused was informed to him by one Samadhiya but the said Sqmadhiya has not been examined. From the record it is also clear +hat overwriting was found in the bi!!s which were produced by the prosecution. V.R. Yadu (PW-3) - Account Officer had admitted th.e fact that no liscrepcncy was fouod by.him in the audit of co.-sh book. It is o.lso Ciear from the record'That nc. .A.aaanwadi worke" ho.s been . -*. '^.. %^^". ./ examined by the prosecution and even the "eievant documsnts have not been produced. Prosecution has fur'th.er' failed to estabiish the fact that any amount was entrusted to the respondent/accused. All these. aspects have been duiy considered b'y the court below whiie passing the impugned judgment of acquittc.i. 7. After hsaring counse! for the parties o.nd going through the evidsnce ava'labie on recor'd and beina yerv much conscious of the existing iega! position that in a case OQainst acquitta! if two views are nossib'e on the ba-sis of th.e evid.ence led bv the nrosecution ond the tria! Court takina one view favourabSe to the accused, rev'srsion of the find'ngs of acquitta! by the appeliate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible. in law, th.is Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondsnt/ accused of the offence punishabie under Sect.ions 409, 420 A 467 of the Indian Peno.l Code, is Just an.d proper o.nd does not cai! for any interference by this Court. For the reasons aforementioned, th.ere Is RO mer'it in the present case and the same is dismis.sed accordingiy. ^, Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge