J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these matters arise out of the order and raise identical questions. They are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-State by challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Sidhpur on 8-2-1984 in Criminal Case No. 1218 of 1980 by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (the Code for short hereinafter ). It was filed against the respondents-original accused persons. However the appeal is dismissed against respondent No. 2 accused No. 2 at the inception. ( 3 ) THE Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner-original complainant challenging the acquittal order and also challenging the order of issuance of show-cause notice under Section 250 of the Code against the petitioner by the Trial Court ( 4 ) A few material facts may be stated at the outset. The Milk Producing Co-operative Society at Village Karli of Sidhpur Taluka in Mehsana District was dealing with milk selling and allied activities Respondent No. 1 was working as a Secretary and respondent No. 2 was working as a President of the said Society. Upon the audit of the said Society for the period commencing from 1 to 31-3-1979 it was noticed that there was misappropriation According to the prosecution case the respondents-original accused persons were responsible for the offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation in respect of the amount of Rs. 19 280. 12 ps. ( 5 ) UPON the appreciation of the facts and circumstances the Trial Court held both the accused persons not guilty. While recording the order of acquittal the Trial Court also directed to issue show-cause notice against the original complainant under Section 250 of the Code ( 6 ) HAVING examined the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor this Court is of the clear opinion that there is no substance in this acquittal appeal under Section 378 of the Code wherein the scope is very much limited. Public Prosecutor this Court is of the clear opinion that there is no substance in this acquittal appeal under Section 378 of the Code wherein the scope is very much limited. It is a settled proposition of law that unless and until perversity is successfully pointed out or unreasonableness or misreading on the appreciation of the evidence is successfully spelt out it would not be advisable for the appellate Court to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. No perversity is pointed out. No manifest error is shown No illegality is suggested Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case there appeals to be no substance in this acquittal appeal filed by the appellant - State. ( 7 ) IN Awadhesh v. State of M. P. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1158 the Apex Court has held that acquittal should not be interfered with lightly unless the view taken by the Trial Court is perverse or unreasonable. ( 8 ) IN Tara Singh v. State of M. P. AIR 1981 SC 950 , the Supreme Court has held that if two views on appreciation of evidence ale possible one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction the Appellate Court should not in such a situation reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. ( 9 ) IT is also a settled proposition of law that when the Appellate Court broadly agrees with the views adopted and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the Trial Court it would not be necessary to embark upon a detailed inquiry. In other words no detailed reasons are to be given while confirming the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. ( 10 ) IN the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the impugned acquittal order cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjust and therefore it is required to be confirmed Consequently the appeal is required to be dismissed. However the original complainant has also challenged the under of the Trial Court passed against him under Section 250 of the Code Having examined the facts and circumstances and the undergoing purpose of Section 250 of the Code it cannot he concluded that the complainant had lodged a false complaint. The complaint was also investigated into by the Investigating Authority which resulted into charge-sheeting of the accused persons. The complaint was also investigated into by the Investigating Authority which resulted into charge-sheeting of the accused persons. Mere acquittal from the aforesaid charges would not be ipso facto sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 250 of the Code. It is not possible to hold that the accusations were made without reasonable cause. The proceedings and the resultant compensation under Section 250 of the Code would be justified if it is spelt out from the record that the accusations were made without any reasonable cause. It is not possible to hold that the complainant made accusations without reasonable cause in the matter. Unfortunately the learned Trial Magistrate has lost sight of this material aspect which has resulted into issuance of show-cause notice under Section 250. Therefore in the opinion of this Court the order of the Trial Court. under Section 250 is required to be quashed and the revision is required to be partly allowed. ( 11 ) FOR the forgoing grounds and discussions the appeal is dismissed. The revision is partly. allowed to the extent that the order of the Trial Court to issue show-cause notice under Section 250 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is quashed and set aside. Rest of the order is confirmed. Rule made absolute. accordingly In the revision. (DKM) appeal dismissed. Revision partly allowed. .