Pankaj Naqvi, J.;— We have heard on the admission of the present appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. by the informant of the case, who was examined as P.W.2 during the trial. P.W. 2 was the husband of P.W. 1. The initial report, which was filed by P.W. 2 before the police, has been extracted by the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 80 of the Judgment and that indicates that his wife (P.W.1)had been taken away by the accused persons in league with each other by misleading her to go with them. The occurrence had taken place on 10.2.2010 as per report filed by P.W. 2, who further alleged that while going with the accused persons from his house, P.W. 1 had taken away with her gold ornaments weighing 20 tolas and Rs.6.5 lakhs in cash. The informant stated in his written report dated 13.2.2010 that before filing the report, he had made hectic search for his wife, but could not find her and as such, filed the report giving the cellular phone numbers of his wife as well as accused Badri Narain so that necessary action may be taken. It appears admitted from the evidence of P.W. 1 discussed in paragraphs 55 and 56 that the lady, who was said to have been enticed away, was moving around with accused respondent Badri Narain Pandey and, during such sojourn, she was found in his company at the Delhi railway station on 13.2.2010 and the police captured the two and brought them before the S.S.P., Ghaziabad who personally questioned the lady. From cross-examination of the lady (P.W. 1), which has been discussed in paragraph 59, it appears that she was beating about the bush in order to inventing reasons so as to satisfying the the conscience of the court that while being misled by the accused persons to come out of her house, she was administered some stupefying substance by accused Badri Narain Pandey and as such she was continuously in and inebriated state of mind, what she meant to say was that she could not understand as to what was happening with her and what she herself was doing. But, overall discussion of the evidence, which has been made by the learned Trial Judge in different paragraphs, like, paragraphs 63 and 64 clearly gives out the picture, which was emerging from the facts of the case. But, overall discussion of the evidence, which has been made by the learned Trial Judge in different paragraphs, like, paragraphs 63 and 64 clearly gives out the picture, which was emerging from the facts of the case. The claim of the informant P.W. 2 , i.e, his wife had run away from the house on accout of being misled by the accused persons and, at that time, she also decamped with Rs.6.5 lakhs, to our conscience also appears a highly projected figure. P.W.2 had admitted during his cross-examination, as appears discussed in paragraph 86 of the impugned Judgment, that on the day of occurrence, he was running a shop of eateries, like, 'kachauri' and if it was like that, which is a fact admitted, then this Court would have serious reservations in accepting the very prosecution evidence that the lady could be going away with as heavy a sum as Rs.6.5 lakhs. The learned Trial Judge has rightly recorded, as appears from the discussion of evidence of P.W. 1 in paragraph 59 at page 14 of the impugned Judgment, that the explanation given by the lady of roaming around with accused Badri Narain Pandey was also not acceptable as there was no evidence other than that of the lady indicating that she had been drugged to make her unconscious. The learned Trial Judge, as such, rightly held that the lady was very much conscious about the company she was keeping, and even when she was roaming around at all public places, she was neither raising her voice or protest against the high handed act of the accused nor was complaining to anyone. So far as the status of the lady is concerned, this may be pointed out with some relevance that it was not that she was a young and adolescent lady, who could be driven by the flow of feelings and sentiments to run away with her paramour. It is admitted that Badri Narain Pande and other accused were regularly visiting her house. This evidence is unchallenged and this is an admission on the relationship of the lady with the accused persons. As we have noted she was not an adolescent or a young lady, who could be driven more by the infectuation for a man which may happen in young age. This evidence is unchallenged and this is an admission on the relationship of the lady with the accused persons. As we have noted she was not an adolescent or a young lady, who could be driven more by the infectuation for a man which may happen in young age. She was already married to the informant (P.W.2) and she had a son of 21 years and she was a landlady of her house. A lady of such a status must be above 45 years of age and if she decides to run away with persons, there could be least acceptance of the allegations by a prudent man that it may be an act, constituting an offence. The learned Trial Judge has written an elaborate and long Judgment discussing most of the important aspects of the case and after going through it and after having heard the learned counsel of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge has not fallen in error in appreciating the evidence by marshalling the facts. As such, the Judgment of acquittal dated 26.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ex-cadre, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trials No. 253 of 2011, 1335 of 2010 and 1172 of 2011, could not be said to be perverse. The prayer to grant leave is refused and the appeal is dismissed. _____________