IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 3467 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 3466 OF 2009 STATE THROUGH PUBLIC INSPECTOR ... Appellant Versus SHRI RAJU PRAJAPATI AND 2 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the State/Applicant. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 19th January, 2010 P.C. The State has filed the above application for grant of Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2009, acquitting the accused i.e. the Respondents herein for offences punishable under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Sections 34 and 511 of I.P.C. 2. An FIR came to be lodged at the Panaji Police Station under Section 420 read with Section 34 and 511 of I.P.C. The said FIR was registered under no. 290/08. It was the case of the prosecution that on 15.12.2008, at about 11.30 hours, the accused with their common intention induced the Complainant to give Rs.1,10,000/- on the pretext of selling gold ornaments which were fake. The accused were caught red handed while attempting to cheat the Complainant. The accused were chargesheeted. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined six witnesses, Pw.1 to Pw.6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that was before it, recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court in so recording has, inter alia, taken into consideration the following facts, that there was no reason for not lodging the report by the Complainant on 12.12.2008 when the accused approached him for the first time or on 14.12.2008 when the accused approached the Complainant for the second time and, therefore, the Trial Court expressed doubt about the complaint itself. The material contradiction in the testimony of the Complainant also weighed with the Trial Court. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that there was material discrepancy as regards the attachment of the pouch containing the fake gold which was allegedly recovered from the accused no.3. The Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had a common intention to cheat the Complainant and that the prosecution also failed to prove the role played by each member of the raiding party who participated in the raid as the same has not been narrated. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that a serious doubt arises as regards the attachment of the fake gold in possession of the accused no.3 as the fact that the Pw.4 searched the accused no.3 in a room near Station Office and removed the pouch and handed over to Pw.2 has not been mentioned in her statement either before the Police or in her panchanama and the material omission has been proved by the defence through the I.O. The case of the prosecution that the weight of the gold attached was 2.026 kgs and was found in the blouse of the accused no.3 itself appears to be doubtful. 3. I have perused the notes of evidence from the record that is made available by the learned Public Prosecutor. On consideration of the same, in my view, the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for granting Special Leave to Appeal has been made out by the State. 4. Application is accordingly rejected. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*