JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 25th February, 2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, No. 6, Ajmer in Cr. Complaint No. 444/2001, whereby accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: "The complainant submitted a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The court below took cognizance against the accused respondent and he was summoned. The charges were framed against the accused respondent and the same were read over to him, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused person were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 25th February, 2009 acquitting the accused respondent. 3. Against the said aforesaid judgment of the court(s) below, this revision petition was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has committed error of law by misreading the evidence available on record. The Court below has failed to appreciate that it is an admitted position that cheque issued by the accused respondent in favour of the petitioner has not been satisfied. Thus, the accused respondent committed offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the court below deserve to be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondents deserve to be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the same. He has contended that court below after due appreciation of evidence, has passed the impugned judgment, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the court below. 6. The court's attention was also drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 7. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 7. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent(s) and the learned Court below was right in acquitting the accused respondent(s) for the alleged offence. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Court(s) below as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below, I find that the learned court below has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondents. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the learned court(s) below and the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of the court below acquitting the accused respondent(s). *******