DIPAK MISRA. J. ( 1 ) - In this State appeal, challenge is to the judgment of acquittal dated 30-4-1998 in Sessions Case No. 1116/84 passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, Sihora, Dist. Ja ba I pu r. ( 2 ) THE accused-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) stood charged for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that, the accused-Gulab Chand was the Sarpanch of Village Harsindhi. On 18 -1- 1983 an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was sanctioned by the State Government for putting Murram on the Dhoda Pola Road of the Gram Panchayat Pola. The first two instalments were disbursed in favour of the accused - Nonelal Patel. Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. However, the road in. question was not properly constructed and forged accounts were submitted by the concerned accused-persons. Without enquiring or verifying about the quality of work the amount in question was disbursed by the Block Development Officer. After proper verification it was found that only Rs. 2,828,94 was spent on the said road for putting Morramt and the balance amount was misappropriated. It is also alleged by the prosecution, that in respect of Village Harsindhi Rs. 10,000/- was sanctioned for repairs of the school building, Semariya by the accused-Dinesh Chand Mishra, Sub-Engineer. The estimated cost was Rs. 10,224,60 but he forged the said document to be of Rs. 20,000/and got it sanctioned from the S. D. O. Semariya. Out of the said amountsecond instalment of Rs. 10,000/- was released by RP. Mishra the concerned B. D. O. As far as Gram Panchayat Changawan is concerned, a road was to be constructed from Indrana Majhouli to Shahar Nadi which was 5 Kms. in length but it was shown as 7. 5 Kms. As far as the said road is concerned, documents were forged and eventually the B. D. O. , Sihora without supervising the work or evaluating the same released the amount in favour of the accused Kashi Prashad Dubey, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Charganwan. It is alleged by the prosecution that Rs. 20,000/- was sanctioned by the competent authority for construction of 2 Kms. road from Khirwa to Indrana reaching road of Gram Panchayat Indrana. Initially a document was prepared for sanction of Rs. 10,000/- but later on, it was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/ -. It is alleged by the prosecution that Rs. 20,000/- was sanctioned by the competent authority for construction of 2 Kms. road from Khirwa to Indrana reaching road of Gram Panchayat Indrana. Initially a document was prepared for sanction of Rs. 10,000/- but later on, it was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/ -. It is also alleged by the prosecution that neither it was instructed by the Sub-Engineer nor evaluation was made. However, the said construction work was estimated by the Gram Sewak Poda on the basis of which the concerned B. D. O. paid Rs. 20,000/- to the accused-Khalil Khan, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Indrana on his furnishing a forged muster roll. The aforesaid allegations were inquired by the Executive Engineer and J. P. Choubey, Assistant Development Commissioner, Jabalpur. The Commissioner Jabalpur found that there has been misappropriation of the funds and a report was submitted. Eventually the matter was handed over to the Police for registering the offences punishable under sections 420,406 and 468/34 of I. P. C. The plea of defence is one of the denial simpliciter. To establish the allegations the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PW-l to PW-5 are the formal witnesses; PW-6 is Rajendera Prasad who had filled the muster roll PW-7 is Ganesh Prasad, a witness to the seizure; PW-8, Braj Pal Singh and PW-9, Sofique are the transporters, who were engaged in the work in question; PW-10, Mohammad Hanif is another transporter of the Morram, PW-11, S. K. Mishra is the investigating officer; PW 12 is RR Mishra who had submitted the charge sheet before the colppetent Court and PW-13 is C. R Chinchalakar who had submitted the initial report and had set the criminal law in motion. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. ( 3 ) IT is relevant to State here that during the pendency of the trial three accused persons, namely, Kashi Prasad, Shiv Gayatri and Ramesh Prakash expired. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Magistrate on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record came to hold that the prosecution was not able to bring home the charge in respect of the accused persons and, therefore, they were entitled to an order of acquittal. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. P. O. Gupta, learned Government Advocate of the appellant/state, Mr. Quamaruddin and Mr. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. P. O. Gupta, learned Government Advocate of the appellant/state, Mr. Quamaruddin and Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6, and 8 to 10 and Mr. H. S. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 7. There has been no representation on behalf of other respondents. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta, that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence which were brought on record by the prosecution in proper perspective and that alone makes the order of acquittal vulnerable. It is his submission that the entries in the register and other documents have not been properly scrutinised for which interference of this Court is wan-anted. Controverting the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that the enquiry report which was submitted by the concerned Executive Engineer was not produced before the learned Magistrate and therefore the base on which the prosecution case was founded was bound to collapse and the learned Magistrate having opined in the same light has not committed any error. It is their further submission that the analysis of the learned Magistrate is quite plausible one and in absence of any perversity of approach this Court would not reverse the finding of acquittal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. ( 6 ) TO appreciate the rival submission raised at the Bar. I have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate. After analysing the evidence the learned Magistrate has token the view that though the Executive Engineer was examined as PW -13 the report which was prepared by him was not brought on record. He has also opined that there is no evidence to indicate that there has been manipulation or interpolation in regard to the documents. He has also expressed the view that there has been no evidence to hold that there was no repairs of roads in question or construction of the road of lesser length. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the prosecution has not been able to specifically establish that the accused persons with an intention have done anything to achieve an advantage. The aforesaid finding has been recorded on the material brought on record. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the prosecution has not been able to specifically establish that the accused persons with an intention have done anything to achieve an advantage. The aforesaid finding has been recorded on the material brought on record. The learned Magistrate has also observed that some of the material witnesses who could have thrown light on the prosecution case had not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation has been offered for such non-examination. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment and the evidence on record it is perceptible that the view token by the learned Magistrate is quite a plausible one. It has been held by the Apex Court in. the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi. v. State of Gujarat as under: The mere fact that a view other than the one token by the Trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusion arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over a acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an allswer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed: Conversely if the appellate Court holds for reasons to be recorded that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. Applying the aforesaid parameters to the present case it can safely be concluded that the view token by the learned Magistrate is quite a plausible one and there is no manifest, error. Hence the judgment of acquittal passed by him deserves the stomp of approval by this Court. ( 7 ) IN view of the foregoing premises the appeal filed by the State being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The accused persons are discharged of their bail bonds. Appeal dismissed. .