JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---There is no substance in the above appeal, filed by the State, against the order of acquittal, passed on February 22, 1974, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulia in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1973, in which the 9 respondents, accused Nos. 1 to 9, were charged under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As we are in complete agreement with the reasons and findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, it is not necessary to burden the record with a long judgment, setting out the prosecution case, the defence statements etc. It is enough to say that the complainant Niranjan Lal, and his associate or servants Ramdas (P.W. 3) and Rupsing (P.W. 4) were disbelieved by the learned Judge for very cogent and convicting reasons. 3. In the information, given by the complainant, Niranjanlal to the Police Patil, Gorakhsing (P.W. 6), he had not stated anything about the (dadar) bags, alleged to have been robbed by the accused, or about the identification of any of the accused, at the time of the alleged robbery, two miles away from the Gujarat State Border at about 7.30 or 8 p.m., on February 23, 1973. The learned Judge has very rightly refused to believe the witnesses, when they sought to identify the accused at the trial. 4. It is impossible to believe, that if the dadar bags stolen, the complainant would not have mentioned about it to P.W. 6 Gulab Goraksing, the Police Patil. It is also impossible to believe that if the witnesses, Ramdas and Rupsing, who were with the complainant, Niranjanlal, were able to identify the accused, even by name, as stated by them at the trial the name of the accused would not have been mentioned to Govind Vithal, by Niranjanlal. Particularly when Niranjanlal went to him the next morning. The learned Judge has virtually disbelieved the claimant and the two witnesses Ramdas and Rupsing as liars and this Court will not interfere with the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses in an appeal against acquittal, particularly when the learned Judge has given very cogent and convincing reason for disbelieving the prosecution story and the witnesses. 5. In the result, the order of acquittal is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds cancelled. ------