Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 2/6/1998 passed by the Special Sessions judge, Panna in Special Sessions Trial No. 37/95-96, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charge under section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "act, 1955") ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 13/5/1995 d. S. Raghuvanshi, Town Inspector of Police Station Pawai district Panna received information that Chhotelal is selling petrol and diesel at higher rates without any licence. This information was recorded in Rojnamcha-Sanha. He proceeded on spot along with staff and conducted search. Search panchanama (Ex. P-2) was prepared. Petrol, diesel and mobile oil seized from his possession. Seizure memo (Ex. P-3) was prepared. FIR was recorded whereby Crime No. 56/1995 was registered against the respondent under Sections 3/7 of the act, 1955. Spot map was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The sample was sent to the Director, Indian oil Corporation Ltd. , Bhopal from where report received. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Panna. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT was charged under Sections 3/7 of the act, 1955. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried, mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and the respondent did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court acquitted him from the charge levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 4. ) SHRI G. P. Singh, learned Deputy Government advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/state submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. It has been amply proved by the prosecution that respondent was selling petrol and diesel without any valid licence. The petrol, diesel and mobile oil were seized from his shop. In spite of it trial Court has acquitted him from the aforesaid charge. The finding of acquittal is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and the respondent deserves to be punished. The petrol, diesel and mobile oil were seized from his shop. In spite of it trial Court has acquitted him from the aforesaid charge. The finding of acquittal is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and the respondent deserves to be punished. ( 5. ) SHRI V. K. Lahariya, Advocate was engaged by the respondent as his counsel but he did not appear on the date of hearing on 8/7/2009 to argue the case. The appeal was pending since 2000. Therefore, Shri Awdhesh Kumar Gupta, advocate has been appointed from the panel of the High court Legal Aid Services Committee to argue the case on behalf of the respondent so that the appeal may be disposed of expeditiously. ( 6. ) SHRI Awdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment, mainly contending that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. Trial Court has rightly acquitted him from the aforesaid charge, hence no interference is called for. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration by this Court is that whether the trial Court has committed an illegality in acquitting the respondent from the charge under Sections 3/7 of the Act, 1955. ( 8. ) D. S. RAGHUVANSHI, the then Town Inspector of police Station Pawai has not been examined by the prosecution though he was posted as Dy. S. P. at Bhopal. Instead of examining him the prosecution examined S. R. Khan (PW-6) in his place. It was not proper. D. S. Raghuvanshi was easily available and he ought to have been examined by the prosecution. He was material witness to the case. Hence presumption may be drawn against prosecution on account of withholding the material witness. ( 9. ) S. R. KHAN (PW-6) has expressed his inability to depose about the information received by D. S. Raghuvanshi. However he stated that he had gone to the spot along with d. S. Raghuvanshi. He is only the witness of map (Ex. P-1 ). Ex. P-2 is the search Panchanama of shop-cum-residence of the respondent. This Panchanama was prepared by d. S. Raghuvanshi and as stated earlier he has not been examined by the prosecution. This Panchanama is said to be prepared before two witnesses Preetam and Omprakash. Preetam has also not been examined by the prosecution. P-1 ). Ex. P-2 is the search Panchanama of shop-cum-residence of the respondent. This Panchanama was prepared by d. S. Raghuvanshi and as stated earlier he has not been examined by the prosecution. This Panchanama is said to be prepared before two witnesses Preetam and Omprakash. Preetam has also not been examined by the prosecution. Omprakash (PW-2) has been examined but he has not supported the prosecution case. He has clearly stated that no any search was conducted by the police. Thus this document has not been proved by the prosecution. ( 10. ) D. S. RAGHUVANSHI, Preetam and Omprakash are the witnesses of seizure memo Ex. P-3. As stated earlier d. S. Raghuvanshi and Preetam have not been examined by the prosecution and Omprakash has not supported the fact regarding seizure of petrol, diesel and mobile oil from the shop-cum- residence of the respondent. Thus the seizure of these articles have not been proved. ( 11. ) OMPRAKASH (PW-2) and Anil Kumar Jain (PW-3)have clearly stated that the respondent used not to sell petrol, diesel and mobile oil. These witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. In spite of piercing cross examination nothing has been brought on record that they are giving false evidence or supporting the respondent. ( 12. ) SANJAY Singh (PW-1) and Lalaram Soni (PW-4) have given the evidence against the respondent, but they have not produced any receipt regarding purchasing of petrol from the respondent. They did not intimate the police at the relevant time that respondent was selling petrol at excessive rate. Both these witnesses have exaggerated their statements. Sanjay singh (PW-1) stated that he purchased petrol several times from this respondent, but S. R. Khan (PW-6) who recorded his statement has stated that no such statement was given by this witness. Thus, he is exaggerating his statement. Likewise lalaram Soni (PW-4) stated that he was purchasing petrol from this respondent for last 8 to 10 years back, but such fact was not narrated in his police statement. Thus he has also exaggerated the statement. The defence of the respondent is that these two witnesses are in inimical terms with him because of demand of money of his shop due against them. In such circumstances no reliance can be placed on the evidence of such witnesses. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. The defence of the respondent is that these two witnesses are in inimical terms with him because of demand of money of his shop due against them. In such circumstances no reliance can be placed on the evidence of such witnesses. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and rightly acquitted the respondent. The view taken by the trial Court is reasonable. It is established principle of law that when two views are possible, then the view taken by the trial court be accepted. In the case of M. S. Narayan Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39 the Apex Court has held that where two views possible, appellate court should not interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by court below. Similarly in the case of Budh Singh v. State of U. P. (2006)9 SCC 731 , it was held that the view of the trial court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case was a possible view, which should not have been interfered with by the High Court. ( 13. ) SINCE no infirmity, illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, therefore no interference is called for. This appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. ( 14. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.