yAe' w nl--' sw'- ...•- ^' A8 ^\&x^"^^ >v ,<,.»l ^^•^ ^(.,0- "^^^ ^ a,,,^^- s^(']^ State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Rajnandgaon (CG) Shiv Kuraar Dewangan, S/o Ramadhar Dewangan, Aged about 41 years, R/o Shakti Nagar, Rajnandgaon (CG) Dobharam. Sinha, S/o Mangturain Sinha, Aged about 44 years, R/o Ward No. 4, Near Sarkari Kuan, Rajnandgaon (CG) ,<,0. Tl ^ ^y""'^"'""^;,, ^•' ^' -sf' 4k "^ ^ S ftassa^ i t^ ^^M^^^^- HI6H COUR-T OF AT BILASPUR SS : HON'SLB JUSTICE "•!• M.p^sn. KfQry. a^ .;' ^nnatt:saar vgrsus- SESPONDEKT Another .uswy.ny.ci.n cs> Shri Praveen Das, Dv. O.A. Ebr the S'.ati/s.ooiicant, APPLICATION CRANT OF- T-0 a; OF 378(lt OF CR.P.C. (23.08.2010) Tne pressnt oetition fiied under Section 378(3! ofthe Cr.P.C, is direc';ed ag&insi the ii^ipugned judgmen; and order dated 23.9.Q5 uassed bv the Judicia; Magistrate First Ciass. Rainandgaon in Cr. Case No. 634/2003 acqi;itting the respondents under Sections 420,467 &> 468/120 (B of the 1PC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis ofwritten reoort dated 22.3.99 lodged bv the DeDuty Director, Pubiic Education Deoartment, Rainandgaon PIR was registered against the respondents on 24,5,99 for commimng the ofsence under SectioR 409 and 420 of r.he IPC, T'he ailegation against the resoondents are that thev were working under the DeDufv Directo" and ;hev had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 1350 in the narae ol one student narnelv Suresh who was Dhvsicailv handicapoed, by ibreing his signah-ire, It is alleged that the said amount was to be disbursed as scholarshio to the ohvsicaUv handicauoed students. 3, So as 10 hold ths accused./resoondent guiltv' the prosecution has exainined as manv as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 ot' the Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the charges alleged against thein and pieaded.'their'innocence and false miplicanon in the case. • — '^A^^^i^ :'- '"""^'y j- ^ ^ f' ^' 4. After hearing the Darties, the triai Court has acQuJited the accused/respondents of the offence as mentioned above. Hence, tne present appeal. 5, Contention of Shri Das, is that on the basis of the evidence and material available on record. the Court beiow has erred in !aw in-acauitting the accused./resDondents, He submits that the Court below has taken a veiy lenient view whiie passing the irnpugned judgment. 6. From the record ir, is apparent that the lodger of the written reoort i,e, the Deoutv Director, Public Education Deoartment, Raiannandgaon has not been exaniinecl, Moreover. the victim Suresh ('P.W.-Q'! has not suoDorted the orosecution case and has been declared hostile; the investieanng officer who registered the FIR has not been examined and thus. the Fi'R has not been proved bv the orosecution. Purther Ravi Kant Jha iP,W.-4' Assista.nt Accountant in District (^oODerative 3ank. Rainanrigaon has also not fuliv supported the prosecution case. 7, Considering all these facts and aspects of the case, the Court beiow has arrived to a concliision of acquitting t.he accused/ respondent. 8. I find no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquit.tal, particulariy the view taken by the court beiow is one of the possible view, It is a settied position of iaw in reiation to cases against a.cauittal. in a Detition aeainst acauittai if rwo view's are possible on the basis of the evidence ied by the prosecution and the triai Court takine one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acqiiittal by the appeilate Court taking the other possibie view into consideration is not permissible in iaw. This Court is of the view that the judgment ii'npugned &cc;uitting the respondents/accused cf the offence as alleged is just and proper. Accordinglv. the ieave as sought for bv the apoiica.nt/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittsl is hereby retused. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge