JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 17.2.97 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in Cr. Case No. 586/89 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances (i) On 30.7.89, at about 5.30 p.m., P.W. 2 Richpal Singh, SHO, police Station, Suratgarh lodged a FIR Ex. P/4 stating that on 30.7.89 at about 3.30 p.m., he along with Gulab Singh, Jai Kishan and other police party proceeded in a jeep for Bhagwansar for the purpose of patrolling and when the police party reached near the Bus Stand Lalpura, they saw a man in suspicious condition and he was stopped and at that time, PW. 5 Kashmiri Lai who was going on a bicycle was also stopped by P.W. 2 Richpal Singh and on being asked the accused respondent told his name to be Hari Chand and he was wearing Chadar and after that Chadar was removed, a desi pistol of 315 bore was recovered from his possession for which he was not having any licence and thus, P.W. 2 Richpal Singh prepared a Fard Ex. P/2 of search and seizure of pistol and through Ex. P. 8 the accused respondent was arrested and through Ex. P/1 PW. 2 Richpal Singh sent that pistol to verify whether it was in working condition or not and P.W. 1 Sukhdeo Singh armour gave his report on the back of Ex. P/1 that the said pistol was in working condition. 3. That after usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondent. 4. On 25.4.91, the learned Magistrate framed charge for offence under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act against the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, as many as 5 witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. and no witnesses was examined in defence. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents through his judgment and order dated 17.2.97 inter alia holding that : (i) That P.W. 2 Richpal Singh in his statement nowhere has mentioned the name of the accused respondent. Therefore, it creates doubt. and no witnesses was examined in defence. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents through his judgment and order dated 17.2.97 inter alia holding that : (i) That P.W. 2 Richpal Singh in his statement nowhere has mentioned the name of the accused respondent. Therefore, it creates doubt. (ii) That the only independent witness was P.W. 5 Kashmiri Lai who has been declared hostile. (iii) That P.W. 2 Richpal Singh does not say that he handed over the recovered pistol to P.W. 4 Gulab Singh. (iv) That the order for prosecution dated 12.10.89 Ex. P. 7 was itself found doubtful. 7. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order this appeal has been filed by the State. 8. In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned P.P. that the sanction Ex. P 7 was validly obtained and judgment of the learned Magistrate is erroneous one as there was evidence to prove the charge for the said offence against the accused respondent. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that the judgment and order of the trial Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call for interference by this Court. 10. I have heard both and perused the record. 11. The position of law with respect of hearing appeal against acquittal has been made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many judgments and for that the important judgment of Ajit Samant v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1997 (SC) 3251 may be referred to. 12. While hearing appeal against acquittal, no doubt the High Court possesses all the powers, but the High Court has to keep in view the fact that presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and if the High Court on scrutiny of material available on record is of the opinion that there is another view which can reasonably be taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. 13. 13. In my considered opinion, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the reasons which has been assigned by the learned Magistrate are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively disclosed or demolished and this Court sitting and hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal merely on flimsy grounds. 14. Since the learned Magistrate has arrived at the findings just quoted above and since they are based on correct appreciation of evidence. This Court should also give proper weight and consideration as the views of the trial magistrate as to the credibility of the witnesses must be respected. Apart from this, the Court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate as the Magistrate had advantage of seeing the witnesses and even if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on 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.For the reasons mentioned above, the present State appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 17.2.97 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Suratgarh.State appeal dismissed. *******