JUDGEMENT DEV DARSHAN SUD, J.- 1. THE State challenges the acquittal of the respondent, who was charge-sheeted along with late Ramesh Chaudhary for offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'IPC') and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. BEFORE we advert to the facts, we note that there were two accused late Ramesh Chaudhary and the respondent herein. Ramesh Chaudhary died during the trial and the second respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court holding that there was no evidence on record to show that he had connived/knowledge about the fact that the property was evacuee property and could not be sold/transferred by the State. Learned trial Court notices the fact that deceased Ramesh Chaudhary was working as Naib Tehsildar Sales/cum- Managing Officer (Land Claims) and sold the land measuring 0- 13-40 hectares situated in Up Mohal Bakrota, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba to the respondent herein for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-, for which sale certificate Ext.PW3/A was issued and mutation No. 220 dated 30.5.1998 was attested. The learned trial Court after considering the entirety of the evidence holds that there was no evidence to suggest that respondent Santokh Singh had knowledge that Ramesh Chaudhary was not authorized to conduct the sale of the property and that he had purportedly charged lesser amount as consideration for the sale of the land and this sale consideration was not deposited in the Government Treasury. 3. IT is this unsatisfactory state of evidence which we are dealing with in this case, which evidence is urged, was sufficient to convict the respondent. Learned trial Court holds that the land in question was in fact purchased by this respondent, but there is no evidence that he was aware about any defects in the title/authority of the deceased to transfer this land. 4. WE have heard learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the record. We are unable to convince ourselves that appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court is not in consonance with the well established principles of law for assessing evidence. The principle is established in C.Magesh and others vs. State of Karnataka (2010)5 SCC 645 . 5. IT is well settled principle in criminal law that where two views are possible, one which favours the accused should and ought to be adopted. The principle is established in C.Magesh and others vs. State of Karnataka (2010)5 SCC 645 . 5. IT is well settled principle in criminal law that where two views are possible, one which favours the accused should and ought to be adopted. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of learned trial Court. The appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled and surety is discharged.