i:[iifc 1 :^si Y-' ig i^v! J.).' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.49/2009 Applteont/ Non-aDBljcant BSSBSnd^- 58 ; Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharina. J. Vs. State of Chhottisgorh, Through the t>istrict Magistrate, bistrict Bilaspur (C.&) fr Rakash Kumar Pandey S/o S-N.Pnndey, Aged about - 47 years, R/o Masangan.j, P.S.Civil Lines, Biiaspur, Oistrict BiSospur ((;.©.) (APPLICATION FOR &RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNbER SECTEON 378(3) AN& MEMORAN&UM OF APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378(1) OF Cr-P.C.) .r- Ajay Dwivedi, Oy.©oyt.Advocate for the npplicant/State. C»<4LORDER :rt yassed on 31" January, 2009) I.A.No.01 This is an application for condonction of detay in fittng the instont appeat as the same has been filed with a delay of 106 days. This petition is directed against -riie judgmwt of acquiftal dated 17.7.2008 passed by the ^>eciat Judge under -fhe Atrocities Act, Bilaspur in Spacial Case No.23/2008 whereby the learned Specia! Judge has acquitt'ed the non-opplicnnt of the charges of Sections 294 & W)6of the Indkin Peml Code ond Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventjon of Atroci+ies) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). 2. The judginent of acquitt-al is challenged on the grounrf that the prosecution has adduced evidence which is ajfficient for conviction of the non-cipplica"t for the offences punishcbte under Sections 294 and S06 &f the India" Pennl Code and Section 3 (i) (x) of the Act but the court' below has wrongty acquittsd the non-applicont and thereby commif'ed an illegality. I• B •^..^./ '^" ./f' ^^^iSia- W.;.;|,.- '.Si^-'f '•".'i -. - 'z 3. I have heard leamed counset for the appficont auid perused The judgment impugned and copy of chapge sheet and other- documents of the complainant cmd witnesses recorded during the tricl. 4. From the perusal of the judgment impugned, it reveols that ths court below has acquitted the non-appliccnt on the ground thot ths nlteged word used by the non-applicant is not obscene and •the prosecution has •feiled to pr-ove the ingrsdient of criminal intimidation, dishonour or insult of the coin.plajnant in pubtic view on the ground of his aaste. Statement of compte'nont-Netram Avma.sh.'f and other documents reyea! thct at -the tin*e of incfdent the coniplainant demanded ren-tal omount frotTi the non- applicant/accu^d and at that tiwe quarret took place. According to the statemsnt of -t+ia comptcinaRt, the non-oppljcant u^d the word "W^ 11<-<^}< 1Tf3-lH3s" and atso calied some person by using mobsSe but cctling some per-son with the help of mobile has not been mentioned in the written r-eport of the complainant. The alleged word used by the "on-qiplicant has no literully means. It appenrs from •the statement of the complainant that the dispute took place on the ground of demand of rent nnd nmount of slectricity bill. S. Aftsr appreciating •the evidenoe availabfe on record, the court below has acquitted the non-applicant of the aforesQid charges leyelled agair'st him. The view taken by the court below is netther unjust nor unreosonabte. 6. Tffking into consideration the view taken by the court below and the matena! esdduced on behalf of the prosecution, I do not find any ground for gnmting of lecye to appeal egainst the judgnient of acquittal. 7. Consequently, the applic<ition CTA.NO.OI) slwids dismissed emd petition js a!so dismissed. Sd/- T.P, Sharma Judge M ^n EB M sss Si w BB i^^ar ^s^r '^M l^