JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated August 19, 1988 passed by Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 28/87, by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Ramniwas for the offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows : That on August 10, 1986 when Excise Inspector Chand Prakash (PW-1) was on duty, he saw the accused-respondent Ramcharan was going on on motorcycle towards Mandola Ward and Excise Inspector stopped him and inspected him. During the inspection the Excise Inspector has found 35 bottles of illegal liquor from the accused-respondent rubber-bag and he sealed the bottles. The complaint was registered and investigation started and one sample was sent to the public analyst and after getting report from the public analyst, the Excise Inspector filed a challan before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bundi under Section 16/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. The charges under Section 16/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act were read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 4 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The accused-respondent has also produced one witness in his defence. 5. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 6. After conclusion of the trial the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) vide his judgment and order dated August 19, 1988 acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges framed against him holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) dated August 19, 1988, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 8. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated August 19, 1988 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 9. 9. He has also contended that learned trial judge has not appreciated the statements of PW-1 Chandmal whereas his statements is supported by other witnesses namely PW-3 Keshari Lal and PW-4 Laxmi Chand. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) 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 Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.). 11. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the accused-respondent that it was also observed by the trial court that Excise Inspector was going on jeep instead of motor cycle but it was added later on and this facts creates a doubt, while it was not explained previously anywhere. He has also contended that the learned trial court has also observed that the statements of PW-2 Keshari Lal is not believable while the persons of PW-4 Laxmichand is also not believable and both are the independent witnesses whose statements is doubtful. 12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has prayed that in view of the above observations, the State appeal should be rejected in limine. 13. 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. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated August 19, 1988 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.), I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent. 15. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SCC 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." 16. 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SCC 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." 16. 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 Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts 1 and circumstances of the case. The Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. 17. 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 1 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 Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. 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 August 19, 1988 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Baran (Raj.) The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******