1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) No. 776/2010 (The State of Maharashtra through P.I. Gondia City .vs. Chandulal Hiralal Deshmukh and others.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for Applicant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2011 Heard. By the present application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., the prosecution has sought leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed on 6.3.2010 by Special Judge and Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia acquitting the respondents/original accused nos. 1,4,5,7,9 to 17, 19 to 21, 25 to 27, 29 and 30 from commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, read with 34 and Section 120-B of IPC and under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said case was registered upon the FIR lodged by Mr. M.G. Jog, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, M.S. Nagpur with Gondia City Police Station on 23.11.1995 inter alia upon the 2 allegations that during the period in between 23.5.1984 to 20.7.1984 respondent no.1 Chandulal Deshmukh was in additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department for Itiyadoha Project, Gondia. It was alleged that during the said period, in furtherence of their common intention with the other respondents and the deceased accused who were either Government Servant and/or Contractor had prepared false documents and used the same as genuine documents and misappropriated the Government money to the tune of Rs.12,31,464/- and used the said amount for their own purpose dishonestly and fraudulently and thus committed offence of criminal breach of trust. It was also urged that false certificates were prepared regarding work being carried out at Bagh and Itiyadoha Project, Gondia Division. After registration of the said offence and after due investigation, the said Police Station had charge sheeted in all 30 persons including the present respondents. At trial, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses i.e. PW1 Murlidhar Mardikar, Executive Engineer i.e. the person in whose absence respondent no.1 was in charge of the relevant work and had committed fraud and misappropriation. Prosecution has adduced his evidence regarding the direction given for the inspection of the said site. PW2 Chaitramsingh Nagpure, Junior Engineer and PW3 Hemant Parate have been examined regarding the inspection of the spot/site carried out by them and the reports submitted by them about the same at Exh.272 and 278 to 284. The prosecution has also examined PW4 Yadao Hedaoo on 3 the point of being present along with PW2 and PW3 while carrying out the said site inspection. However, the said witness at trial having not supported the prosecution, was declared hostile. The evidence of PW5 Ranglal Chaudhari, Senior Clerk, has been adduced regarding entries made in the cash book about the payments made to the various persons for the work allegedly carried out. The evidence of PW6 Narendra Bahekar, Promoter of the Labour Society has been adduced regarding the persons were then members of the society. The learned APP tried to assail the findings recorded by the trial Court after assessment of evidence by stating that the approach of the trial Court is perverse and contrary to the established principles of law. It is his submission that in view of the same, the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court deserves to be interfered with or at least the matter needs consideration and as such leave as sought should be granted. After carefully perusing the judgment delivered by the trial Court and particularly the reasoning given from paragraph no.7 onwards, it is difficult to accept the submission canvassed by the learned APP. The perusal of the judgment in terms reveals that the trial Court has duly taken into consideration the matters flowing from the evidence of the respective witnesses and the inferences arising out of the same. The trial Court has given cogent reasoning in paragraph no.11 of the judgment after taking into consideration the answers given by PW3 during the 4 cross-examination. After taking into consideration the said reasoning, it is difficult to find any fault therein or the reasoning thereafter recorded by the trial Court in paragraph no.13 for not accepting his evidence. Thus considering the totality of the reasoning given by the trial Court after duly considering the evidence surfaced at the trial, it is difficult to accept that the view taken by the trial Court is not the probable view. Needless to add that learned APP has hot pointed any particular part of reasoning given being contrary to evidence on record or being perverse for any particular reason. In view of the same, it is difficult to accept that the prosecution has made out a case for interference and consequently for granting the leave as prayed for. In view of the same, the application for leave and consequently the appeal presented deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE halwai