JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 5.6.1987 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Case No. 136/84 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under section. 147 & 332/149 Indian Penal Code. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) PW-1 Jagannath lodged a written report Ex.P/1 with the Police Station Raisinghnagar on 2.7.1984 stating that on that day he was Inspector, Commercial Excise, Rajasthan and he along with Balvinder Ram, Ramniwas and PW-2 Mahesh went to inspect Newlight Theatre situated at Raisinghnagar at about 11.15 p.m. when 3rd show was going on. Upto 11.50 p.m. Shri T.R. Duggar who was manager of the theatre did not produce the relevant papers and at about 11.55 p.m. relevant papers were brought by Balram, Booking clerk. Manager Shri T.R. Duggar and other persons closed PW-1 Jagannath and his party in the room and he also called Gundas and they did not allow them to make inspection and they were beaten by these persons and they got their signatures under pressure and thus by doing so, they prevented them from discharging their duties. 3. 'On this report police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/3 and started investigation. 4. After usual investigation police filed challan against the accused-respondents. 5. That on 14.2.1986, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges for offence under sections. 147 & 332/149 Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents. All pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. After conclusion of the trial,,the learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 5.6.1987 acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences charged against them inter alia holding : (i) That in the FIR, names of only two accused-respondents are mentioned and names of rest accused persons are not mentioned and no identification parade was done and, therefore, the case against accused-respondents was not found proved by the learned Judicial Magistrate. (ii) That in the statements of witnesses NW-2 Mahesh and PW-3 Balvinder Ram there is improvement and they have contradicted with their police statements and thus, these witnesses are not reliable witnesses. (iii) That since there is clear allegation in the report that PW-1 Jagannath and his party were beaten by the accused-respondent, but neither they were got medically examined nor any injury report has been produced. (iii) That since there is clear allegation in the report that PW-1 Jagannath and his party were beaten by the accused-respondent, but neither they were got medically examined nor any injury report has been produced. In these circumstances, the case of the prosecution comes under the shadow of doubt. (iv) That from the evidence on record, it does not appear that any resistance was ever offered by accused party. 7. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 5.6.1987, this appeal has been filed by the State and in this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate are liable to be set aside and this appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment of the trial Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus, the State appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard both and perused the record. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 dislodged or demolished and this Court sitting and hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal merely on flimsy grounds. 13. 13. 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.Accordingly, the present appeal against accused-respondents is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 5.6.1987 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Case No. 136/84.Appeal dismissed. *******