'\^^ •* l&l iS 1-1 [h^ 0 » I*) 1 itg IHjt-] |o '"!> W,V y ;0 » IA!wwo § 1 h3' 7\ o ro a ri s p i-:- ©•h < , (I) .n> oa >i ro Q. > <j h B ». s? B) p (B h| 1-'- (a (» h; ^•1<; [-•• & ai * a 0 y •• iii (+ _ U3 O (I) o o & Hi n ..C P Ti'O 13- (" P' S &rt- «3 y 1-'- rt a> @ 11 B U1 *6 (-» K! B? (B 0 W O 1-1 I Ci !.§ 1§ !? !m 'f.l^ i-3M ti ;J' (II Cn d- iu(til hh n ^s"y fflrt rt' (-•• m 10 11)4;.r (H ils IB IH EM versus The State of Chhattisgari Horendra Giri ShriVivek Shaiiua, P.L> fortJae Statej aweSas.t. Shri Sushobhit Siagh, couiiselfor fhe respoadeal 3^3f5Q&. OF APPEAL UNDER SE.CTIOM 378(1; CH.P.C. 1) The preseat petition filed under SectioE 378(D offtie Cr.PjC. is drrccted against the izapugned judgi&ent an.d ord.er dated. 26.09.i2000 passed bv the Judicial MagisfTate First Class, Mahasamund iia Cr. Case No. 467/99 acquitting the respondent/'accused under Section 409oftlie IPC. ait 2. Case of fhe prosecution ia 'brief is that a wittten complaiitS lodged. by coiaplairiaat Ranuiarayaii. Bajpai (P.W.-9) alle.gmg.ttii respondent/accused who was the predecessor of&cer ofj coiaplaiiiant. bad comjaitted bicacli of trust of Rs. 7,768.38. alleged fhat certaia. ainoyiit. was recoyered froia the receipts of fhe same were given, tiQWever, tbe saaie was not depofe in the bank aad fhis amount has been inisappropriated. Base'fl this coiniplain.t, the respond.ent/accused was prosecufed Sectioa409 oftheIPC. , : , ase'fl 3. In suppbrt of its case, the prosecution lis.s examinfe<|., 11 witnesscs iacluding that ofcoinplamaD.tRaiii.lNarayaa Bajp'ai 9). Ststeiaent of ttie respoaG.ent/accused was also reeonied was the the | E It is sited on iUtncler (y.w.- 'ander u; Section 313 Cr.P.C. in wliich. be deiiied fne charges levelled agairist hiui aiid pleaded his uinocence and, false iinpllcation ra fiie case. 4. After heariEtg fhe parties, the trial Court has acquitted tlie accused/respondent. of the offence as m-entioned above. Hence the present appeal. 5. Shri Sharm.a, counsel for the State/appeUant subniits that tlie Court below has erred in law in. acquittilig fhe- respondent/accused despite recoveiy of tlie amount of Rs. 13,323.25 which has been ausappropriated by fhe respQndent. He •fiirfher i subinits that fhe evideace has not been con-ectty apprcciated by the Court betow wliile acquittuig fhe respondent. ' 6. Onfhe other haild, supportirigfh.eunpugBedjudgin.eiititJaas been argued by Shri Suigh tb.at the prosecution lias utterly tailed to prove its case. He subaiits tts.at even fhe'.vritten co'm.plEunt bas aot been exhibited, FIR has not been. exhibited, the enquiiy icportwhiich is fhe base of lodging flle FIR has not been produced before jfhe Court, the Investigati.a.g Ofiicerhas notbeen exainiiied aitd tlierefore the acquittal offhe respondent is fuUy justified. 7. Heard .counsel for fhe parties aad perused fhe laateirisl available on record. i Tbe Court below has acquitted fhe respondent/accused on|fhe foIIowiBiggtounds: • ; j J 3 fhat the enquiiywas conducted by fhe complauiaiiti Raia Narayaa Eajpai (P.W.-8 &, l IV but no such eriquity report was filed by the prosecution. ii) investigatmg Ofiicer could not be exami&ed b^ jthe •orosecution. iuS That tiie entries ins.de iu flie accouii.t book do aot SllOW a.ay (ieficiency in the fixnds as well as m. fb.e casl] lboc|k. iv) Even fhe coinplaiaaat Ram. Narayaa Bajpal is:n6tj si.ire about the allegations^as leveUed against tlie respondien.T. v) EveatIiehaQdwritiligexpertsopinibn-wasnotsou.glB.ij. -^^ ''•^t^L^^AJ-'-'' ^' 8. Bare penisal of the evidence aiid tlie judgment of i.he tria! Court makes it clear fhat wIiUe passiag the judgiuent impugned tlie tt'ia] Court has considered aU tbe aspects of tlie case aiid has arrived to a particular conclusion of acquittiiig the respondent,/accused. 9. Thus, after beariag coiinsel for.fhe parties aad con.siden'a.g the niaterial avaiiabie on record as weU as the elaborate judgliient UH.pugu.ed passed by fJie Court below aad beiag very miich conscious oftlie existirig legal position tbat iri an appeal agamst acquittstiffrw-o views are possible oa tbe basis ofthe evidence .ted by tlie prosccutioa aiid the trial Court takiug one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acqiuttsi by Ihe appellate Court taking t]ie ot'ner plausibie view into consideration, is not pcrfliissible iv law, tliis Court is of fhe view that fhe judgro-ent iTiip'ugned acquitting rhe accuse.d/respondent oftlie offence as alleged, is just and proper aad does not warraat aay iaterference by this Ci.iurt. Accord.mgly, rjie appeal faUs aad is disnussed as such. ,.^^—-• pritinker Diwaker Judge it