JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition, the complainant-appellant Mohd. Ali Kayam Khani seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2011 as passed in Criminal Case No. 452/2001 Whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara has recorded an order of acquittal of the accused respondents Mohmood Khan Dariya Khani and Mariyam Bano who was charged for the offences under Sections 341 and 506 Indian Penal Code 2. The background in which the respondents were accused and tried for the offences aforesaid are that on 15.1.2006 the appellant was going to meet his grant parents at village Maghras, Tehsil Baneda and when he reached there then respondents started to abuse to the appellant-complainant and threat him if he do not withdraw the case filed by the appellant-complainant for custody of his child then they will kill him or implicate him in false case. On this complaint, the learned trial Court took, the cognizance and after trial acquitted the respondents accused for the aforesaid offences. From dissatisfying the judgment impugned, appellant-complainant preferred this criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant seeking the question-the impugned judgment and order so passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara contended that the order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law because learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused-respondent only for the reason that complainant-appellant had not produced any independent witness in support of the case which is not permissible in law and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. 4. The learned trial Court inter alia observed as under: " mDr lk{; dk gesa ewY;kadu djuk gSA ifjoknh vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g dFku djrk gS fd vfHk;qDr us ifjoknh dks >wBs dsl esa Qalkus dh/kedh nhA ml ?kVuk ds le; fldUnj vkSj vYyknh ekStwn FksA ijUrq ifjoknh vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa vU; dksbZ lk{; bl U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha dj ik;k gSA ifjoknh ds izfrijh{k.k dk voyksdu djsa rks ;g rF; Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd mHk;i{kdkjku~ ds e/; vU; fookn U;k;ky; esa yafcr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa flQZ ifjoknh ih0M0 1 eksgEen vyh ds dFkuksa ij fo'okl djuk U;k;laxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA i=koyh esa gekjs le{k tks lk{; miyC/k gS] mlds vk/kkj ij ifjoknh dh lk{; ls ;g rF; lUnsg ls ijs izekf.kr ugha gks ik;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k egewn [kka o efj;e ckuksa us fnukad 15-1-2005 dks ifjoknh eksgEen vyh dks fof/k iwoZd tkrs gq, jksddj ck/kk Mkyh ,oa ifjoknh dks >wBs ekeys esa Qalk nsus dh/kedh nhA " fcUnq la[;k 2 pwafd fcUnq la[;k 1 lUnsg ls ijs izekf.kr ugha gks ik;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k egewn [kka o efj;e ckuksa vkjksfir vijk/kksa esa lUnsg dk ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA " 5. After having considered with submissions made and having examined the impugned judgment, this Court is not persuaded to grant leave to appeal in the present appeal particularly when the view as taken by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be unjustified because important witness who is present on sport as per the complainant's story Sikander and Allahdeen both have not examined as witness. 6. In totality of the circumstances, with the prosecution case lacking in relevant evidence so as to bring home charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the view taken by the learned trial Court remains a possible view of the matter and cannot be said to be altogether perverse, baseless or improbable. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is clearly of the opinion that no purpose would be served by granting leave to appeal in this case, because on the evidence as adduced and as omitted to be collected by the prosecution, there appears no likelihood of the respondents-accused being convicted for the offences aforesaid. 8. Accordingly, leave to appeal as prayed for in this case is declined, and the same stands rejected.Leave to appeal rejected. *******