Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The Jaipur Development Authority through Director (Law) has preferred this appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 1.5.2006 passed by Special Judge, (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur in criminal appeal No. 336/2006, whereby he quashed and set-aside the Judgment dated 18.5.2005 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 JDA, Jaipur in Case No. 305./1997 convicting the accused respondent under Section 72 of the JDA Act and sentencing her to undergo 6 months' SI with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' SI, and discharged the accused respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Enforcement Officer of the JDA, who is a public servant, against the accused respondent mentioned the fact that on 25.9.1997, he visited the site alongwith the Jr. Engineer and patwari and then he found that accused respondent had constructed a room and a shop after encroachment upon the land of JDA/Govt. Situated at Khasra No. 1063 situated in village Jhotwara. The site report Ex.P/1 of the encroachment was prepared and afterwards the complaint was filed by the Enforcement Officer under Section 72 of the JDA Act. 3. The accused was read over the substance of the offence. The accused respondent denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. To prove its case, the complainant appellant produced 4 witnesses and also produced some documents. In defence, the accused respondent produced 3 witnesses and got exhibited one document. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.5.2005 convicted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 72 of the JDA Act. 5. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.5.2005 passed by learned trial Court, the accused respondent preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court. 6. The learned appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties acquitted the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 1.5.2006. 7. The Jaipur Development Authority feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 1.5.2006 has preferred instant appeal before this Court. 8. In this appeal, Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the JDA submits that in view of the order dated 7th Nov. 1983, the power was given to the Addl. 7. The Jaipur Development Authority feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 1.5.2006 has preferred instant appeal before this Court. 8. In this appeal, Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the JDA submits that in view of the order dated 7th Nov. 1983, the power was given to the Addl. Secretary, Assistant Public Prosecutor and Deputy Director (Enforcement) for filing the complaint before the court concerned.The learned appellate Court has not considered the material available on record and erred in acquitting the accused respondent. 9. The order dated 7th Nov. 1983 passed by the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur by which Dy. Director (Enforcement) has been empowered to file a complaint is reproduced as under: ^^t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e 1982 ¼1982 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e 25½ dh /kkjk 75 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] U;k;ky; esa mDr vf/kfu;e ;k blds v/khu cuk;s x;s fu;e] fofu;e ;k vkns'k ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k ds rF;ksa dh fyf[kr f'kdk;r djus gsrq] ,rn}kjk] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds vfrfjDr lfpo] lgk;d lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd ,oa mi funs'kd ¼izorZu½ dks Hkh izkf/kd`r djrh gSA ¼t;iqj fodkl vk;qDr rFkk eq[; izorZu ,oa lrdZrk vf/kdkjh o lfpo dks t;iqj fodkl vk;qDr dh lk/kkj.k rFkk fof'k"V btktr ls mDr lEcU/k esa igys dh izkf/kdj.k ds vkns'k Øekad tsMh,@,DV-@¼6½@82@2760 fnukad 4 flrEcj] 82 }kjk izkf/kd`r fd;k tk pqdk gS½** 10. In support of his case Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the JDA has placed reliance upon a case of Dhian Singh vs. Municipal Board, Saharanpur, reported in AIR 1970 SC 318 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "(1) Criminal -complainant- Section 20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 417(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - appellant charged with offence of food adulteration - complaint signed by Food Inspector -(FI) Trial Court acquitted appellant- High Court reverred Trial Court Order on appeal preferred by Municipality and convicted appellant- in Supreme Court appellant challenged authority of FI to file complaint on behalf of Municipality - Apex Court held, as per section 20 of the Act Municipality competent to file complaint." 11. Mr. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the JDA has further placed reliance upon a case of Food Inspector, Health Department, U.T., Chandigarh vs. M/s. Krishna Dhaba, reported in AIR 1994 SC 664 in which in the last of para 4 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "A complaint u/S. 20 thus could be instituted apart from Central or State Government, by a person authorized in that behalf. Such a person who is authorized to institute complaint could, "give his written consent for the prosecution by the Food Inspector," A.K. Roy (supra). Chief Medical Officer, Chandigarh undisputedly, and as is clear from Notification No. 5210-UTF-4-67/9461 issued on 29th April 1967 by the Chandigarh Administration in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, was a person authorized to institute a complaint. Therefore, he could give his consent as well for launching of prosecution. In doing so he was neither delegating his power nor acting contrary to Section 20. He was acting within the scope of authority as a person authorized to institute complaint under Section 20(1) of the Act has been placed at par with other authorities designated in the sub-section for purposes of granting consent." 12. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned appellate Court has acquitted the accused respondent. There is a contradiction, omission and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witness. Thus, the impugned Judgement of acquittal dated 1.5.2006 passed by the learned appellate Court 13. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case as also the Judgments referred to above. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 1.5.2006 passed by the learned appellate Court, I find that the learned appellate court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution provided against accused respondent. 15. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. 15. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & 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 ar possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 16. 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 and the learned appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. 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. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court and thus appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 1.5.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, (Sati Niwaran) & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal appeal No. 336/2006. However, it is made clear that in view of the aforesaid order the complainant i.e. Enforcement Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur at the relevant point of time, was legally empowered for filing the complaint before the concerned court.