Bachchoo Lal, J.— This appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre No. 3, Saharanpur dated 24.9.2012 in S.T. No. 73 of 2011, State v. Afzal and others, connected with S.T. No. 76 of 2011 and S.T. No. 77 of 2011 acquitting the accused-respondents under Section 401/413, I.P.C, and 25/4, Arms Act. 2. Heard learned A.G.A and perused the trial court judgment and record. 3. The prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by S.I. Sushil Kumar Verma, P.W. 1 on 4.1.2010 at 11.45 p.m. at police station Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur was that the informant alongwith some other police personnel were making a round of Vishwash Nagar Rajwahey on 4.1.2010. Infront of a country liquor shop at Vishwash Nagar, they were informed that in a dilapidated house which was constructed in the grove of Mansha Ram, the four accused-respondents were talking with each other and making plans for stealing some buffaloes. One buffalo was standing in the pickup Van. The accused were discussing amongst themselves a plan for stealing some more buffaloes from the village Dumjehri from where they had stolen the buffalo on the Van on 29/30.12.2009. At that point, the accused were arrested, and knives were recovered from their possession. 4. Learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons on the ground that no public-independent witness has supported the prosecution case and only some police personnel have come forward for supporting the prosecution version. There was no need for the accused-respondents to have talked so loudly so that their conversation could be heard by the police from some distance that they were planning to commit a further theft of some more buffaloes. It was not clear that any F.I.R. was lodged regarding the theft of the solitary buffalo which was said to be standing on the van, hence the ingredients of Section 401/413 were missing. The knives which were found on the persons of the four accused-respondents had been planted on them and also the said knives were not used either on any animal or on the police personnel when they tried to apprehend the accused which was improbable if the accused persons were carrying knives. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that there was no reason for the police to falsely implicate the accused-respondents. 6. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that there was no reason for the police to falsely implicate the accused-respondents. 6. Having considered the judgment in totality, in our view, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Judge in acquitting the accused-respondents is unreasonable. We therefore, find no ground to either allow this application for leave to appeal or to admit the Government appeal. Consequently both the application and the appeal are rejected. 7. Before parting with the matter, we are disappointed to note that in spite of our order, whereas the State very often fails to file a Government appeal in grave cases of murder etc., where acquittal is completely unjustified and that some times such appeals are admitted on applications under Section 372, Cr. P.C. moved by private complainants or by the victim, but the State choses to file appeals in minor matters such as in the present case where there is little chance of success. This is in the teeth of our directions in Government Appeal No. 2515 of 2011, State v. Bablu, that such Government appeals ought to be vetted by the Government Advocate before filing. Pursuant to the said order, the State has brought out a G.O directing that such appeals be vetted by the Government Advocate/Addl. Government Advocate. 8. Learned Government Advocate states that a committee is being constituted which will examine the matters regarding filing of Government appeals. We hope that the said committee is constituted at the earliest and that such frivolous appeals are not allowed to be filed indiscriminately which results in unnecessarily wastage of the court's precious time. 9. Copy of the order may be furnished to the learned Government Advocate. _____________