Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.4.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bandikui, Distt. Dausa in Criminal Case No. 408/2008 (535/2006) whereby he trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for offence under Section 448 of 424 IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 7.10.2006, complainant submitted a written report to PS Bandikui being FIR No.630/2006 for the offence under Sections 448, 427 and 379 IPC. After investigation, police filed challan before the Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui for offence under Sec. 448 and 427 IPC. The trial court framed charge against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined certain witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of accused respondent under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, acquitted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences vide impugned order dated 27.4.2011. Against the said order, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, and has also not properly considered the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that appeal deserves to be allowed for the reason that PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 in their statements have stated that the accused have demolished the wall of the temple and further they take away the construction material. There were no discrepancies in the testimony of these witnesses, hence the order impugned dated 27.4.2011 should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by trial court dated 27.4.2011, and contended that the trial Court has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence appeal should be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by trial court dated 27.4.2011, and contended that the trial Court has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence appeal should be dismissed. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: bl izdkj vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ijhf{kr djok;s x;s xokgksa dh lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd efUnj lkoZtfud LFkku gS rFkk fdlh O;fä dk bl lEifÙk dk ekfyd gksuk vfHk;kstu dh lk{; ls Li"V ugha gS rFkk lHkh yksx iwtk djrs gSaA xokg ih-M-1 nsohlgk; us vius izfrijh{k.k ea ;g dFku fd;k gS fd xfeZ;ksa dk le; Fkk og dejs ds vUnj Fkk vkokt vk;h rc og ckgj vk;k rc nhokj fxjh gqbZ FkhA bl izdkj ;g xokg ?kVuk dk izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh ugha gSA xokg ih-M-2 jkts'k us Hkh vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gS rFkk vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ijhf{kr djok;s x;s mä xokgksa esa ls fdlh Hkh xokg us ;g dFku Li"V :i ls ugha fd;k gS fd vfHk;qäx.k }kjk vkijkf/kd vfrpkj fd;k x;k ftl lEifÙk esa izos'k dj vkijkf/kd vfrpkj fd;k tkuk vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr xokgksa us dFku fd;k gS fd og lkoZtfud lEifÙk gS ftlesa dksbZ Hkh O;fä iwtk ikB djus vk tk ldrk gSA vfHk;qäx.k }kjk nhokj rksMdj fjf"V dkfjr djus ds lEcU/k esa Hkh vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr xokgksa dh lk{; esa rkfRod fojks/kkHkkl gS rFkk xokg ,d nwljs ds c;kuksa dh iqf"V ugha djrs gSaA 5. The court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136, in which their Lordships of Supreme Court observed in para No.26 that: "It is not well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136, in which their Lordships of Supreme Court observed in para No.26 that: "It is not well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to re-assess 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 weight and consideration to he 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is liable to be dismissed." 6. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the 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 respondent/s. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove is case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence for which he had been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent/s. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below, as same appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the complainant-appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below.