IN THE HIGH GOURT OF MAHWA PRAEEQH AT JABALPUR. m No‘ W3 GRIMINAL APPbAL NOV. ' 51w J1997.~ THE «TATE OF M P. THrmUGH r , I wRICT MAQSTRATE, h IGARH., -V“R Ury- , A PPELLANT ; r RE SPONDENWL: un-mam ~ 1 t nu m‘ I r‘,. '- g, BaLBHAmA AGRAVIAL s/o OHRI m AGRAwAL, mm 35 Ymm, R/o POLME TATION-KH WIYA,>¢ / @L;RICT—RMQMH({$§33 / APPLTLATION FOR LEAVE TO ApPL‘AL UNJ‘ER QECT ION 378§5) ”Ru ,C 7§EIMIIJAL APPEAL UNDER “ECIIO é? (’1) Ch.P.C. K :J m " « n g 16?! CQURT QF CHHATTL56ARH AT BILA$P H UR 5ingle Bench : Hon’bk Mr. Justisg Pritinkgr Diwgkgr Criminai Agpeo! No. 1534 of 199i APPELLANT The 5mm of Madhya. Pmdesh Versus RESPONDENT ‘ Balbhadm Agrawul. m Y Shm €hr‘l Afr-OJ Akhll Mishr'a Khan counsel Dy G A for for The fhP responden‘r Sm’rez’appelhn’r CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE (9F: cMMiNAL paocgbuag ORDER (05.04.2010) The presen’r appeal arisgs ou‘r of Thg judgment and ordgr' dm‘ed 09.01.1997 passed by Judicial Magisfmte, First Clasa Raigarh in Criminal Case Na. 437/1994 acqum'ing The respondent/accused for The alleged offence punishable under Sectian Z92 cf the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief faets ef the case are ma? on 2411994 Satyendm Pandey, Station Hausa Officer, Palice Sfafion Kharsia was s s‘i‘anding near ihe Beni Palm! Pump and he saw Thai one Ramsai' was carrying Twa cassettes of blue film, an iniermgo‘iian the ‘ said Ramsai had informed him Thai those fwe casseifes have ‘ been lake” by him an rent from the shop of ’rhei W accused/reepondeni. IT is furiher alieged Thai upon receiving L This informai'ion, The shop of The accused/respendem‘ was raided by The poliee auTheriTies and 3.7 easeeTTes 9f blue film were faund from The said Shep. Based on This FIR (EXP-Z) was reme‘h’r-Pd gnnmst The nrru<pd/re3pgndpn+ 3. In suppm"? of H5 case, The prosecufion has examined (Ls many as 3 wi’rnesses‘ Sfa'remen‘r of The respondent/accused was aiso recorded under Section 313 0f The Code of Crimina! Pracedure in which he denied The charges [evelled against him and pleaded innocenee and faise impiiemion in the case. 4. By The-“Judgment impugned the court below hasroicquitted The respondent of the alleged offence punishable under Secfian‘ 292 of The Indian Pena! Cede. Hence This appeal. 5. Counsel for The Siafe/eppellam submi‘rs lhal' despite sufficient evidence available en record, The court below has erred in law in acquiifing ihe respcndeni/dccused. He submiis that though The seizure witnesses have ne’r supporfed The prosecu‘l'ion case buf The InvestigdTion Officer has ’cdTegorically sTdTed TheT cesseTTes of blue film were eeized from The possession 0f The eccused/respandeni and, Therefore, on The basis of This sTdTemenT alone, The eour’r below oughT To hove convicTed The accused/respondent 6. On The oTher hand, supporTing The impugned judgment, counsel for The respondenT submiTs ThaT The view Token by The courT below is one of The plausible and possible View and, Therefore, finding as given by The courT below cannoT be y inTer’fered wiTh. We \l 7. I have heard counsel for The porTies and perused The maTerial available on record. 8‘ From The sTaTemenTs of Gopal Sharma (PW~1) and Vijay Kumar Vadav (PW-3), who are The seizure wiTnesses, iT is apparenT ThaT They have noT supporTed The prasecuTion case and They have been declared hosrilei Now, The only evidenee ‘ against the raspgnden1/gccused is Invasiigairing Qfficer; Frcm 'rhe gvidencg 9f Scn‘yendm Pandey, Investigating Offieer (PW- Z) if appears that hg has suppgrtgd Thg pmsecufi‘on case but his evidence is ncT as such on whim basis along {he respondentmecuxd can ha canvicted, this is espaciqiiy in View of The fact fhm‘ Ramsai who was "the person fmm Wham The ‘i first informgd’ion was coilected by the police, has no? been‘ examined. 9; After due apprgciatian 0f Tha evidence available on reeard, The Court below had arrived to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able fo prove iis caoe beyond all reasonable doubfs, fhe respondent is eniil’led for ooquilfal. 10, Affer hearing counsel for lhe parties and going ihrough the evidence available on record and being very much conseious of the existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court toking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent ./ accused of the offence punishable under 5ection Z92 of the ’ Indian Penal Code, is Just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. ‘For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the. . present case and the same is dismissed accordingly. oiwa“e‘ l” ptlt'mKe‘ 3gdge 5 / //ri