Hon ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has come up for hearing after the expiry of period of more than 24 years from the date of occurrence. (6.2.1984). (2). The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa (hereinafter to be referred as `the learned trial Court ) dated 20.8.1990 in Sessions Case No. 218/1984 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 420 IPC. (3). In brief, the facts of the case are as under:- On 6.2.1984 Shakuat Ali (PW.1) S/o Shri Nizammudin submitted a complaint before the Court in which it is stated that he was an unemployed person and came for employment. He went to Shri Kundanlal Verma Eye Hospital, Chirawa in search of a man, where accused was learning the work of compounder. The accused respondent told to the complainant that he send the unemployed persons foreign for employment. The accused-respondent told the complainant to bring Rs. 12,000/- alongwith his testimonials on 6.6.1982. On 6.6.1982 at about 4.00 P.M. the complainant reached at the hospital with aforesaid amount and testimonials. He gave the same to the accused-respondent. After obtaining the aforesaid amount the accused-respondent assured the complainant to send him abroad. But, after the expiry of period of 15 days, the accused-respondent did not complete his assurance. (4). After expiry of approximately two years the complainant PW.1 Shakuat Ali filed a complaint for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The same was directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of IPC to S.H.O. Chirawa to investage the matter. (5). Upon the said direction of the learned Magistrate, S.H.O. Chirawa lodged a First Information Report for the offence under Section 420 IPC. and started investigation and after investigation filed a challan for the aforesaid offence before the learned trial Court. (6). The learned trial Court framed the charge for the offence u/Sec. 420 IPC. (7) The charges was read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (8). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (9). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In support thereof the accused-respondent produced three defence witnesses namely DW-1 Badri Prasad, DW-2 Bajrang and DW-3 Shyamsunder respectively. (10). (8). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (9). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In support thereof the accused-respondent produced three defence witnesses namely DW-1 Badri Prasad, DW-2 Bajrang and DW-3 Shyamsunder respectively. (10). After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.8.1990 acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges framed against him holding interalia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. (11). Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 20.8.1990, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. (12). In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.1990 is erroneous one and should be set aside. (13). He has further stated that the learned trial Court has erred in not considering the statements of PW-2 Miraj and PW-4 Shakuat Hussain only on the ground that they are relatives of PW-1 Shakuat Ali, hence the learned trial Court has erred in his judgment. (14). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order 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 from the charges framed against him and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court in this appeal. (15). (15). He has further draw the attention of the Court upon the statements of DW-1 Badri Prasad, DW-2 Bajrang and DW-3 Shyam Sunder which runs as under:- ^^Mh-MCY;q- 1 cnjhizlkn dk dFku gS fd ;kelqUnj mldk yM+dk gSA mlds llqj dk uke xaxkjke gSA xaxkjke dk HkkbZ jkedqekj Fkk tks xqtj pqds gSaA jkedqekj ds lkr yM+ds gSaA lcls cM+s dk uke egkohj izlkn gS tks fpM+kok esa vka[kksa dk vLirky pykrk gSA xaxkjke ds ikap yM+ds gSaA bu nksuksa ds rkyqdkr dkQh vlsZ ls [kjkc gSA ftuds eqdnesckth Hkh pyh gSA ;g dsl egkohjizlkn us ;kelqUnj ds f[kykQ djok;k gSA ;kelqUnj mlds xokg ds ikl gh nqdku esa dke djrk gS tks ch-dke- fd;k gqvk gS ftldh rhu rhu izfrfyfi izn kZ Mh-1 gSA uksfVl egkohj izlkn us fnyok;k Fkk ftldk tokc Hkh ;kelqUnj us fn;k FkkA og lu~ 1983 esa viuh yM+dh dh kknh esa Hkkr uwrus x;k Fkk rks egkohj izlkn us mldks xkfy;ka nh o dgk fdog mls etk p[kk;sxkA egkohj izlkn ds f[kykQ vka[k QksM+us ds eqdnesa cus gSaA >qa>uw fxjrkj gqvk rFkk og vc tekur ij gSA og kkSdr vyh] kkSdr gqlSu o fejkt dks ugha tkurk gSA mudk muds ?kj fnYyh vkuk tkuk ugha Fkk ;kelqUnj us egkohj izlkn ds ikl dHkh dke ugha fd;k gSA izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku xokg dk dFku Fkk fd ;kelqUnj us egkohj izlkn dks i= fn;s gks rks irk ugha gS fQj dgk fd loky gh ugha mBrk gSA mldh yM+dh dh kknh dk dkMZ izn kZ Mh-11 gSA Mh-MCY;q 2 ctjax dk dFku gS fd cnjhizlkn mlds thtkth yxrs gSaA mlds pkpk dk uke jkedqekj gSA ftldk lcls cM+k yM+dk egkohj izlkn gSA egkohj izlkn ds ikl dksbZ fMxzh ugha gS rFkk mlds f[kykQ rhu eqdnes vka[k QksM+us ds py jgs gSaA muds rkyqdkr cqjs gSaA ;kelqUnj ds f[kykQ esa jaft k dh otg ls dsl cuk;k gSA ;kelqUnj us egkohj izlkn ds ikl fpM+kok esa dHkh dke ugha fd;k gSA cnjhizlkn dh yM+dh dh kknh ds le; mldh cfgu o thtkth Hkkr uqrus vk;s rc egkohjizlkn us cqjk Hkyk dgk Fkk rFkk Qalkus dh /kedh nh FkhA Mh-MCY;q 3 ;kelqUnj us Lo;a us xokg ds :i esa dgk gS fd og xksfoUniqjh esa lu 1962 ls vius firk ds lkFk jgrk gSA mlds f[kykQ ;g dsl egkohj izlkn us cuok;k gSA og kkSdr vyh] kkSdr gqlSu o fejkt fdlh dks Hkh ugha tkurk gSA egkohj izlkn us ;g dsl mlds ekekth ds f[kykQ jaft k gksus dh otg ls cuk;k FkkA mldh eka Hkkr uwrus xbZ rc egkohj izlkn us yM+kbZ >xM+k fd;k o Qalkus dh /kedh nhA osniky odhy dh ekQZr ,d uksfVl egkohj izlkn ds dgus ls kkSdr vyh dh rjQ ls fnyok;k x;k Fkk tks izn kZ ih- 5 gS ftldk tokc mlus ns fn;k Fkk tks izn kZ ih- 6 gSA egkohj izlkn ds f[kykQ eqdnesa py jgs gSa og viuh ekdZ khV yk;k gS ftldh udy izn kZ Mh- 7 gS og egkohj izlkn ds ikl dHkh dEikm.Mj ugha jgkA** (16). He has also draw the attention of the Court upon the Letter Ex. P.3. He has also draw the attention of the statement of PW-3 Dr. Mahavir Prasad in which he has stated that he has submitted a letter of accused-respondent in the police but the same was not produced by the police to the Court and in this matter the police has not recovered the money as well as passport. He has further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory from each other. He has also draw the attention of the Court upon the last para of the judgment of the learned trial Court and lastly he has argued that the accused-respondent is facing the trial since 6.2.1984, this tentamounts to punishment and the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent. (17). Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 20.8.1990 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. (18). The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & 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." (19). Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. (20). I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. (20). 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 weight 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. (21). Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.8.1990 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa. The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.