l l H IIIIIIII I l llll CF0000O5946 vwmp Jm §W§§3 Fwwm ¢ F,Ea’Mi§ msH AT JABALPUR‘. \ . A max-1.x. \No ‘ I i ‘ CRIMINAL kPPaAL H f .31;; /19§5¢ 1g ‘ _ j ‘gwg; \ a- (mm mam OF MJn I ‘l 4 Q, ‘ V ' ‘\ x ‘VERSw‘ y " ‘1 k _ ‘ _ x x ‘ REsWMENTSw— ‘ * :-‘ é: RAMPJSH KW mm OF ANAmRAM u ‘ i ‘ . a " """'""‘ JEE REsxuENT OF PITAMPURA, \ "‘ ’ K.P. 25, NW mLHI, P‘s“ I PKTAMPURA AT RKESENT QENLQR mNAGER ORENML BANK pF .‘ COMMERCE 131m :Pbmmm T: % GGPALPRAQAD am OF MEANJAN \t J ' , , w ’ \ Ram, PMSAD RAIPURcMP &GRA¥IAL, R/o me. Z / A , . 3. / wRAmL cmTURBHUJ lam/mm s/o NIRNJAN ROAD RMPW Pmwwg] 1 PPLICATI6N FOR LEAVE TO A§PEAL UN‘TB. SEC ION 378 ‘ » R APPE DER SECTIN 3;$f, ‘ A ‘ ‘ ‘~ “y ::~; “VEw‘vx Lhx:y ~ \ A ‘ m . _, h A: m 3 1 x: t A 5‘ ’ L0P¢Cg m“ '43P. f. ‘ zt a «aw... v» Wmm§, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 1996. State of Madhya Pradesh. APPELLANT VERSUS Ramesh Kumar and others. RESPONDENTS Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. .Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal counsel for the respondents. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE‘CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (25.02.2010) e instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18.2.1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 4166/1992 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. I 2. Briefrfacts of the case are that on 5.11.1984 a written report was lodged by the Divisional Forest Officer, Korba alleging that in the year 1982-83 a forest contract was taken by one Basantlal for which a bank guarantee of Rs. 94,400 was given by respondents/accused GopaiPrasad, Chaturbhuj Agrawal and one Basant Lal Kedia. it is alleged that the said bank guarantee was of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Raipur and maturity date for the same was 31.3.1983 but the same was tampered to be 11.12.1982. On the basis of the said written report FIR was registered on 4.1 .1985. 3. After framing of charge, the respondents/accused were put to trial but despite 8 opportunities, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence in support of its case and in these circumstances the Court beiow was left with no other option but to close the evidence of the prosecution. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the Court below ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of its.case but'in closing the case and pronouncing the judgment of acquittal without affording the Th §4 reasonable opportunity to the prosecution It has committed a grave Illegahty 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused! supports the Impugned Judgment and submits In spite of suffcrent opportunlty, the prosecution has not bothered to adduce case leavrng the Court below wrth no other option but to close the eVIdence and pronounce the Judgment 7. Record shows that 8 opportunities were given to the prosecution to adduce evrdence In support of Its case and when the prosecution did not take any step In this behalf the Court below has closed the eVIdence and pronounced the Judgment The approach of the Court below In domg so cannot be said to be erroneous Thus after going through the material available On record, ‘1‘ considering the fact that the incident is said to have taken place In 8. the year 1982 83 and being very much conSCIous of the eXIstIng legal pOSItIon that In an appeal against acqUIttal If two Views are posslblet on the baSIs of eVIdence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused this Court Is of the conSIdered opinion that reverSIon of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other pOSSIble View Into conSIderatIon Is not permISSIble In law and therefore the Judgment Impugned ‘acquitting the respondents /accused of the offence under Sections 420 and 468 IPC Is Just and proper and does not warrant any Interference by this Court Accordingly, the appeal being Without substance Is liable to be dismissed. lt Is accordingly dismissed. / x ‘ ll Prmnker Dlwaker ? I *2 é I a _ Judge J ’W ~ L ll {7:1