C. P. SEN. J. ( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against acquittal of the respondent Satish Chandra alias Lalloo Pande for the offence under section 379 I. P. C. by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. The trial Magistrate had convicted him for the offence and sentenced to R. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default further R. I. for six months. The complainant Ramesh Chandra Agrawal has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 1980 against return of the seized amount of Rs. 42,274/- to the respondent by the appellate Judge. The complainant has also filed Criminal Revision No. 465 of 1980 against acquittal of the respondent. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that the complainant Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (P. W. 4) and the respondent Satish Chandra were residents of Jhansi and they were known to each other from before but they were not friends. On 17. 7. 1972 the complainant Left Jhansi for Indore by the Delhi-Madras Janata Express. The respondent also travelled in the same train in the 2 tire sleeper compartment. The complainant was carrying Rs. 58,500/- in his attach case; Rs. 30,000/- was kept in a plastic bag and Rs. 28,500/- was wrapped in a piece of newspaper. They got down at Bhopal Railway Station at about 2 30 a. m. and they had to catch the train to Indore at about 5. 00 a. m. The respondent brought some soft drink in a whisky-bottle which tasted sour and the complainant refused to drink the same. Then the complainant and the respondent slept in front of the First Class Waiting Room on the platform No. 1. Before sleeping the respondent kept his shirt inside the attache-case of the complainant. The complainant was using the attache-case as a pillow. They had asked the waiter Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) to wake them up in the morning at about 5. 00 a. m. Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) woke up the complainant at about 5. 00 a. m. and told him that the respondent had left the platform for taking tea and before going he had opened the attache-case. The complainant found the lock of the attache-case open and the plastic bag and the news-paper bundle containing an amount of Rs. 58,500/- missing. He then lodged a report in the G. R. P. Police Station, Bhopal at about 9. The complainant found the lock of the attache-case open and the plastic bag and the news-paper bundle containing an amount of Rs. 58,500/- missing. He then lodged a report in the G. R. P. Police Station, Bhopal at about 9. 15 a. m. mentioning that Rs. 30,000/- was kept in a plastic bag and some more amount in a packet. The complainant then contacted his father on trunk and gave a further report (Ex. P-22) stating that in the packet Rs. 28,500/- was kept. Immediately A. S. I. , G. R. P. Brijlal (P. W. 14) of Bhopal left for Jhansi. He searched the house of the respondent and learnt that he has left for Kanpur. He then seized the Cash Books, Rokad from Harcharanlal (P. W. 2), father of the complainant. He also seized a piece of news-paper Dainik Bhaskar from him. A message was flashed the Kanpur to arrest the respondent. The respondent was arrested on 18. 7. 1982 and currency notes of Rs. 42,274/- were seized along with a plastic bag and news-paper Dainik Bhaskar. The two pieces of news-paper were sent to the expert N. K. Kesarwani (P. W. 15), who opined that the two pieces were out of the same paper because contours of the two pieces tally. Some of the currency notes bore signatures of the complainant and also of his munim Shriram (P. W. 3) and the same were sent- to the Handwriting Expert along with specimen signatures for comparison but the opinion of the Handwriting Expert has not been produced nor the expert examined. The defence was of denial and false implication, because the respondent used to play Satta with the complainant in partnership and there was a dispute between the two over the Satta payments and that is why the respondent has been falsely implicated and the amount of Rs. 42,274/- which was seized from him the house of his father-in-law at Kanpur where he had gone to purchase a second-hand truck. He also examined three defence witnesses to prove his defence; and the signatures of the complainant and his munim on the notes are an after-thought. 42,274/- which was seized from him the house of his father-in-law at Kanpur where he had gone to purchase a second-hand truck. He also examined three defence witnesses to prove his defence; and the signatures of the complainant and his munim on the notes are an after-thought. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Magistrate convicted the respondent for the offence under section 379 I. P. C. by relying on the evidence of the complainant Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 4) and waiter Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) and the following circumstances: (i) that the complainant and the respondent travelled together from Jhansi to Bhopal and in the night they slept in the platform; (ii) in the morning the respondent disappeared without informing the complainant and on opening the attache-case the complainant found Rs. 58,500/- missing; (iii) the plastic bag in which Rs. 30,000/- was kept and the piece of news-paper in which Rs. 28,500/- was wrapped were recovered from the respondent and the other piece of the news paper was seized from Harcharanlal (P. W. 2) and both the pieces were found to be of the same paper by the expert; and, (iv) some of the notes bear the signatures of the complainant and his munim Shriram (P. W. 3 ). ( 4 ) IN appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge doubted the prosecution story and disbelieved the complainant and the waiter Ghanshyam (P. W. 12 ). He doubted the story of the complainant and respondent travelling together from Jhansi to Bhopal on 17. 7. 1972. He also doubted about their sleeping on the platform at Bhopal on that night. The prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence regarding the complainant and the respondent travelling together in the two tire sleeper compartment in the Delhi Madras Janata Express. No independent person has examined to show that both of them had slept on the railway platform at Bhopal on that night. Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) was an old acquaintance of the complainant. It is difficult to believe that the complainant carried cash of Rs. 58,500/- with him for purchasing oil. No independent person has examined to show that both of them had slept on the railway platform at Bhopal on that night. Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) was an old acquaintance of the complainant. It is difficult to believe that the complainant carried cash of Rs. 58,500/- with him for purchasing oil. He could very well have taken a draft instead of carrying such huge amount which was not safe now-a-days It is also difficult to believe that with such huge amount the complainant would have slept in the platform and allowed the respondent to keep his shirt inside his attache-case where the notes were kept. Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) has stated that he had seen the respondent moving the two bundles of notes which were quite huge and which could not have escaped his notice. He has only stated that the respondent had opened the attache-case and took out his shirt. In the initial report (Ex. P-7) there is mention about Rs. 30. 000/- and it was not mentioned that Rs. 28,500/- was also kept in a packet. This information was given subsequently vide Ex. P-22. In both these reports there is no mention that Rs. 28,500/- was wrapped in a news-paper or that the notes bore signatures on the complainant and his munim. It is improbable that the respondent would not have disposed of the plastic bag and the news-paper and would have kept the same with him, though he had sufficient time for their disposal. The prosecution has not tried to trace out how the remaining amount of Rs. 16,226/- out of the amount of Rs. 58,500/- were spent by the respondent. The handwriting expert has not been examined. The story of Rs. 28,500/-were wrapped in a piece of Dainik Bhaskar newspaper and recovery of another pieces of the paper from the father of the complainant is an after thought so also about the signatures on the notes. Relying on the evidence of Chandrika Prasad (P. W. 2) who was a Panch in the seizure of the notes, it has been held that the notes were seized from the house of the father-in-law of the respondent. Jagdish Prasad (P. W. 1) has stated that the respondents brother had a factory in the industrial area at Jhansi and the respondent was living with him. Jagdish Prasad (P. W. 1) has stated that the respondents brother had a factory in the industrial area at Jhansi and the respondent was living with him. P. S. I. Pathak (P. W. 19) of Nawab Gani Police Station had not denied in his cross- examination that the respondent gave out that he had brought the money for purchasing a secondhand truck. Biharilal (D. W. 1) is an agriculturist and contractor and he has stated that he had advanced Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent for purchasing a second-hand truck. Therefore, it cannot be said that possession of Rs. 42,274/- by the respondent was not accounted for. Accordingly he has been acquitted and the seized amount has been ordered to be returned to him. ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the State and also by the complainant that the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in acquitting the respondent by reversing the findings of the trial Magistrate who had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and has also given cogent reasons for basing his conclusions. In his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. the respondent had denied seizure of currency notes of Rs. 42,274/- from him. P. S. 1. Shivkumar Tiwari (P. W. 9), 5. 0. , Jhansi has deposed that the respondent had no ostensible means of livelihood, his brothers are also doing nothing and one brother was prosecuted for robbery. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that no case is made out for interference with the order of acquittal and even if another view of the evidence is possible that is not a ground for reversing the acquittal of the respondent there are many ifs and buts in the prosecution story; it has not been shown that Rs. 58,500/- were with the complainant on 17. 7. 1977; Rs. 5,000/-was deposited in the Bank and so the balance left in the Rokad was only Rs. 49,458/- it is stated by Harcharanlal (P. W. 2) father of the complainant that the balance amount was borrowed from others; no evidence has been produced by the prosecution that how much quantity of oil was to be purchased and at what rate and there is no mention in the Rokad about carrying of Rs. 49,458/- it is stated by Harcharanlal (P. W. 2) father of the complainant that the balance amount was borrowed from others; no evidence has been produced by the prosecution that how much quantity of oil was to be purchased and at what rate and there is no mention in the Rokad about carrying of Rs. 58,500/- by the complainant; in any case the burden was on the prosecution to prove its case and it was not for the respondent to show as to how he came in possession of Rs. 42,274/ -. ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra1 has held that: TThe dictum of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor and a bead-roll of decisions of this Court have firmly established the position that although in an appeal from an order of acquittal the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, it should to use the words of Lord Russel of Killowen always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as : (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. ( 7 ) AFTER having heard the parties and perused the record, lam of the opinion that there is no case made out for interference with the order of acquittal and return of the seized amount of Rs. 42,274/- to the respondent. ( 7 ) AFTER having heard the parties and perused the record, lam of the opinion that there is no case made out for interference with the order of acquittal and return of the seized amount of Rs. 42,274/- to the respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has based his findings on appreciating the evidence on record. The findings reached by the appellate Judge are reasonable and plausible on the basis of the evidence on record and cannot be easily and effectively dislodged or demolished. Even if another view is possible that is not a ground for interfering with the order of acquittal. The complainant Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 4) is stated to have carried Rs. 58,500/- for purchasing oil from Indore. It has not been explained as to what was the necessity of carrying such huge cash when a draft could have been prepared as he had sufficient time. The Rokad of the complainant shows that an amount of Rs. 54,458/- as the opening balance on 15. 7. 1977. Rs. 5000/- was taken to the Bank for change of any rupee notes to high denomination notes but curiously enough the amount was deposited. So the balance left was Rs. 40,458/ -. Harcharanlal (P. W. 2), father of the complainant has stated that, the balance amount was taken as loan from others. The respondent was only known to the complainant but they had no intimacy. It is rather unusual for the complainant to have slept in the platform with Rs. 58,500/- in his attache-case. He should have been on his guard after the respondent tried to give him some drink which tasted sour and which he refused to drink. It is also very unusual that the complainant allowed the respondent to keep his shirt in his attache-case where the notes were kept. The prosecution have not produced the Railway record to show that the complainant and the respondent travelled together in the same compartment on 17. 7. 1977. No witness has been examined to prove that both of them had slept in the platform at Bhopal on that night. The only witness examined is Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) who is an old acquaintance of the complainant. 7. 1977. No witness has been examined to prove that both of them had slept in the platform at Bhopal on that night. The only witness examined is Ghanshyam (P. W. 12) who is an old acquaintance of the complainant. Surprisingly, in the morning Ghanshyam saw the respondent opening the attache-case of the complainant but he did not wake him up although he had been instructed to do so and he only woke him up after the respondent had left the platform. If the respondent had removed the two big bundles from the attache-case containing currency notes Ghanshyam would not have failed to notice the same. Though the incident took place at about 515 in the morning the report. (Ex. P-18) was lodged at 9. 15 a. m. , i. e. more than four hours thereafter in the G. R. P. Police Station which is in the Railway premises. In the report keeping of Rs. 30,000/- in a plastic bag alone has been mentioned and not about Rs. 28,500/- being kept in a packed wrapped in a news-paper. Later on, vide Ex. P-22, it is made out that Rs. 28,500/- was kept in a separate packet. In both these reports there is no mention about the packet being wrapped in a piece of news-paper and some of the currency notes bearing signatures of the complainant and his munim Shriram (P. W. 3 ). The writing on the currency notes were sent to the Handwriting Expert for opinion but neither the opinion has been produced nor he has been examined. The prosecution has not tried to ascertain as to how the remaining amount the respondent had spent i. e. the amount of Rs. 16,226/- or so spent by the respondent. It appears that the story given out by the complainant is not the real story and it is just possible that there was no theft but less of money by the complainant in gambling and the story of theft has been made out in order to recover the lost amount from the respondent. It has not been shown that the respondent knew that the complainant was carrying Rs. 58,500/- with him. He met the complainant casually in the Railway Station. Jagdish Prasad (P. W. 1) has stated that the respondent is looking after the business of his brother who is dead. It has not been shown that the respondent knew that the complainant was carrying Rs. 58,500/- with him. He met the complainant casually in the Railway Station. Jagdish Prasad (P. W. 1) has stated that the respondent is looking after the business of his brother who is dead. The plastic bag which has been recovered in a multi-coloured bag while in the F. I. R. it was mentioned that it was LAL PEELE RANG KE BAG. It is also rather unusual that the identification of the plastic bag was held at Jhansi and not at Bhopal where the incident took place. P. C. Pathak (P. W. 19) S. O. Nawab Ganj Police Station has not denied the suggestion that the respondent had told that he had brought the money for purchasing a truck. It is true that the respondent in his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the seizure of notes for the reasons best known to him but that would not prove that the notes belong to the complainant. Therefore, it has been rightly ordered that the seized notes be returned to the person from whom they were seized. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY both the appeals and also the revision fail and are dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent are discharged. Revision dismissed. .