BY NOTIHCATrQN NO 9960A) 2870/xxl alga/G5 As spEc‘F-ihD m séHFDULE I a n OF THE couRT”FEE3 ACT'1370. coum' FEES EXEMPTED , / ‘ 1 g IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. K M3 “h'; ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. / 200$? 2 CR. M. P. No.23 [ 2009 viii? 1 E§$ua v‘ ‘P‘ 3:) it APPLICANT/ APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT Mersingh Tekam, RESPONDENT S / o Faguram Tekam, Aged about 39 years R/o. near Narhardev School Uday Nagar, Kanker District Kankar (C.G.) ’ rake€x APPLICATION FOR GRANI/OF LEAVE To APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3T AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(11’ OF THE CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 3 " OF HIGH COURT 0;: GHHATTSSCEARH AT B§L¢x$§3UR Singkz Bemh : Hon’bie Mr. Justice Pritiakegf mwaker CLMP. No‘ 23 o€ 2909 Anplicant $tate of Chhat‘kisgarh Versus RESPONBENT Mersmgh Tekam Shri Praveen Das; Gavt. Advocam for the State‘ Shri Parag Katecha, coumssi forthe respcna‘em. Application fer arant 9f ieave 'te anpea! under Section 3?E§35-amj memo of awaar ana‘er 3ec€§cn 3?3;’%) 0f Ehe {Eada 9f Srimmgg grocedurségigR. G R E3 E R (24.1 1 .200Q) The present revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge; North Bastar Kanker in Criminal Appeal No.08/2008, allowing the appeai fiied by ihe accused/respondent chalienging the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar Kanker in Criminai Case No.1266/2DO7 by which the accused was convicted fer the offence under Section 420 cf indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the presecution is thai wriiien repcrt (EXP/3) cit. 19.05.2007 was lodged by Jeevan Singh Darendra (PW-2) alleging in it that the accused while wefking as constable , Police Station Kanker, at the relevant time had‘ assured job to the complainant fca’ appointment for the post of constable and demanded Rs, l,40,000/- which was paid to him by the complainant. However, when the result of the said selection was declated, the name of the complainant was not there in the selection list. When the complainant had demanded the money back, the accused assured him to give back the same, however the same was not given and the F.i.R. was lodged. 3. On the basis of written report, FIR (EXP/5) was registered against the accused on 17.06.2007. 4. in support of its case, as many as 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of 'the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. After appreciating the evidence of these Wiinesses, the ccurt beiow has acquitted the respondent/accused. 5i In the statement cf cemplainant; though the aliegation has been made for making payment cf Rs.i,40,00D/— to the accueed; this allegation has not been substantiated by the complainant as he faited to give exact date on which the payment was alleged to have made. Further in the court he has stated that payment was made before Chetan Singh (PW—3) whereas the said Chetan Singh has not supported this statement of the complainant and dented the same. As per the statement of the complainant? an agreement was also entered into between him and the accused on 12.04.2007. however, this agreement couid not be proved by the complainant as per the requirement of law. The witnesses of the agreement have not supported the case of the complainant and even the signature of the accused was also not proved by the handwritten expert. The seizure witness of the alleged agreement have also not supported the prosecution case and it is thus clear that the existence of the very agreement became doubtful. Even the notary Smt. Vimaia Sharma (PW-5) by whom the agreement was registered has categoricatty stated that the said agreement was not executed in her presence. tom the evidence it is also ctear that the complainant has utterly failed to prove that from where he had obtained the amount of Rst ,40;OOO/-, because no documents to this effect has been filed by him showing any bank withdrawal or bank pass book. Though allegation has been made by the complainant that the money was withdrawn from the bank for making the payment to the accused, relevant documents have not been filed. 6. l have heard counsel for the parties and the material availabte on record. 7. From the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution and f? the material on record it is thusvery clear that the prosecution has l failed to prove the case beyond all doubt against the accused. it is a \ settied legal position that in an appeal against aéquittal if two views are possibie on the basis of the evidence ted by the prosecutéon and the trial Court taking one View favourabie to tho accused, reversion of the findings of aoquittai by the appellate Court taking the other possible View into consideration, is not permissibie in taw; this Court is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitttng the respondent/ accused of the offences punihable under Sections 420 of the indian Penal Code i just and proper and does not cat! for any interference by this Court. More over the prent petition is barred by iimitation and no reasonable expianation has been give this regard. n by the prosecution in l 8. The petition fails and is accordingiy dismissed. / / g‘g,‘ i _ Q‘ a I:{ ag \ \ / %//a,‘ e‘ / J’x‘ikv'wia i ‘x\\‘e 3o e s s es