JUDGMENT 1. 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.6.1997, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jahalwar in Cr. Case No. 190/93 (197/86) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar by which he acquitted the accused respondent from the offence under Sections 420, 467 & 471 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused respondent applied for the post of Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation at Jhalawar Depot where he shown his educational qualification as Higher Secondary pass from the Board of Secondary Education, M. P. In this regard, an enquiry was made from M.P. Board, it was found that the accused respondent appeared in the said Examination in the 1981, but he was declared failed. Upon the said report, the police registered a case for the offence under Sections 420, 468 & 471 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police filed a challan before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar who framed charges against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 420, 467 & 471 Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondent who denied all the allegations and claimed for trial. 3. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 56 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondent were also recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalwar through his judgment and order dated 12.6.1997 acquitted the accused respondent from the charges framed against him as stated above. 5. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court dated 12.6.1997, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal. 6. In this appeal it has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondent without appreciating the statements of prosecution witnesses which is against the law and facts and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. He further contended that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application under Section 311 Ja. Fo and not called Mr. M.L. Shukla and B.P. Yadav and acquitted the accused respondents and in fact, they should have been called. 8. 7. He further contended that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application under Section 311 Ja. Fo and not called Mr. M.L. Shukla and B.P. Yadav and acquitted the accused respondents and in fact, they should have been called. 8. He further contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider the documents and statements of witnesses which shows that the mark-sheet of accused respondent was duplicate. But without considering this fact, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondent on the behalf of doubt is illegal, hence, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Mehla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondent has urged this Court that the learned trial Court has given proper attention to the statement given by the prosecution witnesses as well as the statement of accused respondent in accordance with law and given cogent reason for acquitting the accused respondent after proper appreciation of evidence, hence, no interference is called for by this Court. In support of his arguments, he drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 7, 8 & 9 of the judgment of the learned trial Court and according to him, there are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. He has also drawn attention of the Court to Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.10. 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 and order of acquittal dated 12.6.1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, I find the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent. In my considered opinion, the reasoning given by the learned trial Court for acquitting the accused respondent cannot be said to be erroneous one. 12. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umrao Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2006 SC Vol. 10 Page 136 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "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. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2006 SC Vol. 10 Page 136 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "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 beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with 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. 14. In appeal, the 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 judges 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 passed by the court below. 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 15. For the reasons state herein above, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.6.1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. If the accused respondent is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******