Short Note : 1. The acquittal of respondent No.1 Hansraj of offences under sections 120-B, 467 and 468, IPC, and that of respondent No.2 Babulal of offences under sections 120-B, 420 and 471, IPC., has been challenged by the State in this appeal. 2. The short facts leading to this appeal, as per prosecution case, are that respondent No.1 Hansraj was working as a manager of the Warehousing Corporation at Jaora in the year 1967-68. Respondent No.2 Babulal was the manager of the Joint Hindu Family firm, Messers. Gangaprasad Bachchulal, which carried on the business of cotton, groundnuts etc., at Jaora. He was also the proprietor of Jaora Oil Mill and Jaora New Gin Press Factory, Both the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Punjab National Bank, Ratlam, and, in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, three forged receipts No.277 dated 23-11-1967, 278 dated 6-12-1967 and 279 dated 6-12-67 of the Warehousing Corporation. Jaora, were prepared by respondent no.1 who delivered them to respondent No.2. Against these three receipts, which were pledged by respondent No.2 with the Punjab National Bank Ratlam, he obtained an advance of Rs.1,73,000/-, Rs 1,15,000/- and Rs. 3,62,250/- respectively totalling Rs.6,50,250/-, in a fraudulent and dishonest manner, by using these receipts as genuine, knowing it fully well that they are forged by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy. Held: Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence and vehemently urged that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case against both the respondents, but we are not persuaded to agree with his submission. In an appeal against acquittal, in our opinion, ordinarily no interference with the trial Court's conclusion is called for unless there are compelling reasons to do so inter alia on account of manifest errors of law or of fact resulting in miscarriage of Justice. It is only in cases where there are compelling reasons that an interference with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is called for. Ordinarily, due importance to the opinion of the learned trial Court has to be given when it has arrived at the conclusion after proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is only in cases where there are compelling reasons that an interference with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is called for. Ordinarily, due importance to the opinion of the learned trial Court has to be given when it has arrived at the conclusion after proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It appears that the learned trial Court felt that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of doubt but that doubt, it seems, was whether the matter is covered by any criminal or civil liability. We are satisfied that, considered in this light, the dispute in the present case is more or less of a civil nature and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the respondents beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. Appeal dismissed.