JUDGMENT 1. -This application for leave to appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of acquittal dated 18.9.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh in a case under sections 186, 353, 385, 379 & 506/34 IPC. 2. Mr. Upadhyay contends that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the charges are amply proved by the statements of PW I Jagdish, PW 3 Mahavir and PW 4 Jhabarmal. 3. Mr. Gehlot, on the other hand, contends the trial Court has considered the statements of each and every witness and has assigned cogent reasons for disbelieving their testimony. He submits that by the order of acquittal the presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced and this Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal even if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case. 4. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses. The facts in short, are that on 8.6.1989 Ramlal Singh was the conductor of the bus. The respondents who were Inspector and Assistant Traffic Inspector checked the bus in the discharge of their official duty. They found that 13 passengers were travelling without ticket. They, therefore, took the Way-Bill in their possession and went away. Ramlal Singh conductor lodged a report at the Police Station but no action was taken. He, therefore, filed a complaint in the Court of Magistrate who forwarded the same to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police gave final report. On the protest petition filed by the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 21.10.1989. The prosecution examined PW 1 Jagdish, PW 2 Ram Lal Singh, PW 3 Mahavir, PW 4 Jhabarmal, PW 5 Nawab Ali, PW 6 Sukhdev Singh and PW 7 Om Prakash. Accused in their statements denied accusation. Accused Bajrang Singh gave evidence on oath. Mahavir Prasad was examined as defence witness. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate found that the Conductor himself had handed over the way-bill and the bag to the checking party. He did not believe the prosecution story that the accused had demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the Conductor or that they had committed criminal intimidation. He, therefore, acquitted all the accused. 5. It is not in dispute that the accused-respondents had checked the bus in the discharge of their official duty. He did not believe the prosecution story that the accused had demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the Conductor or that they had committed criminal intimidation. He, therefore, acquitted all the accused. 5. It is not in dispute that the accused-respondents had checked the bus in the discharge of their official duty. It has also come in evidence of Ramlal Singh that, without any objection he had handed over the bag and the way-bill to the checking party. Therefore, there was no question of taking these articles by the accused with dishonest intention. As regards the demand of Rs. 2,000/- by the accused persons, the prosecution has examined three witnesses. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that accused was known to them from before the occurrence. Ram Lal Singh has tried to conceal this fact in his statement. It is obvious that these witnesses have given false evidence to help the complainant. The prosecution has not examined the driver of the bus who was the best person to depose as to what transpired between the conductor and the checking party. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, perfectly justified in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution. The accused have examined Mahavir, driver of the Jeep in which the checking party had gone to the place of checking. Maliavir denies in emphatic term that the members of the checking party had made a demand of Rs. 2,000/- from the conductor. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in holding that the charge of extortion was not proved by the evidence on record. 6. On a careful Consideration of the entire evidence and material on record, I am of the view that the judgment is based on the proper appreciation of evidence. It is settled legal position that even if two views are possible on the evidence yet the High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not take the view other than the one taken by the trial Court, because it had the additional advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. It cannot be said that the conclusions drawn by the trial Court are manifestly erroneous or wholly unsustainable. 7. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.Appeal rejected. *******