JUDGMENT 1. 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(i) & (iii) Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.1.1993 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Criminal case No. 270/86, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code by giving him benefit of doubt on the ground of matter being of civil nature. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- HINDI MATTER 359676 3. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered an FIR for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. After investigation the Police submitted challan against the accused person for the afore-mentioned offence. The learned trial Court read over the charge to the accused respondent. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 4. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 10 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 5. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. 6. After conclusions of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.1.1993 acquitted the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. 7. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.1.1993 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 8. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.1.1993 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. A bare perusal of statement of PW2 Devi Prasad, clearly reveal that the accused respondent has not received any amount. He submits that if a person mortgage his/her valuable assets, in all probability, he shall give such assets to the mortgagee in writing. A bare perusal of statement of PW2 Devi Prasad, clearly reveal that the accused respondent has not received any amount. He submits that if a person mortgage his/her valuable assets, in all probability, he shall give such assets to the mortgagee in writing. Actually, the jewelery was not mortgaged with the accused respondent but was mortgaged with accused No.2 Rahesh, who has already been discharged by the learned trial Court. Most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Lastly, he submits that the present matter is only of civil nature, which the learned trial Court has also presumed. Thus, the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial Court dated 27.1.1993 need no interference of this Court. 10. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 11. Having gone through the impugned judgment 27.1.1993 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent. 12. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." 13. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which they have been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent by giving them benefit of doubt. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 27.1.1993 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur in Criminal Case No. 270/1986.Appeal dismissed. *******