JUDGMENT Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 25 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 30.6.2005 recording acquittal of the Respondents - Original Accused persons for the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows. 2. On 20.3.1996 at about 11:30 am, the Respondents who are the Trustees of Anupam Education Trust had arranged a meeting, and at that time, it is the case of the complainant that he was abused with the utterances regarding the caste which led to the aforesaid complaint at Exh. 11. 3. After the investigation was over, as the offence is triable by the court of Sessions, the charge was framed and the trial court proceeded with the trial. 4. In order to bring the charges leveled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined the witnesses including the complainant and other witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence. 5. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Special Judge recorded the further statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 6. After hearing the learned APP as well as learned Advocate for the complainant and the learned Advocate for the defence the learned Special Judge rendered the judgment recording acquittal which has led to the present Appeal. 7. Heard learned Advocate Shri R.A. Sejpal for the Appellant -Original Complainant, learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Shri Rajesh K. Kanani for Respondent No. 2. As the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have expired the appeal has been abated qua them. 8. Learned Advocate Shri R.A. Sejpal for the Appellant - Original Complainant has referred to the papers and the complaint at Exh. 11. He emphasized with regard to the manner in which the incident had occurred and submitted that the offence which require utterances in the public view would stand satisfied as it was made in presence of the other two persons. Learned Advocate Shri Sejpal therefore referred to two aspects; one is with regard to the investigation that it was not investigated by the I.O. of the rank of Dy. Learned Advocate Shri Sejpal therefore referred to two aspects; one is with regard to the investigation that it was not investigated by the I.O. of the rank of Dy. S.P. and therefore the whole proceedings are vitiated and further he has also referred to the reasons recorded for the findings and acquittal and submitted that they are erroneous. Learned Advocate Shri Sejpal has referred to the provisions of the Atrocity Act and the Rules in support of his submissions. 9. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh K. Kanani for the Respondent -Original Accused has referred to the judgment and the reasons recorded for the findings and acquittal and submitted that earlier as recorded in the judgment, the complainant had filed Revision Application No. 224 of 2004 which was rejected. Thereafter he had also made an application Exh. 73 at the fag end for the purpose of bringing on record the certificate regarding the caste. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani submitted that in spite of all the opportunity granted, the Sessions Court has held that the complainant has failed to establish the offence and recorded the acquittal which is just and proper. He submitted that earlier, first the revision application was filed, thereafter application Exh. 61 was given to examine one of the two independent person Sakraji which was granted and the accused persons have also given the consent. However, subsequently, the same was not pressed by the complainant and ultimately the said Sakraji was not examined as a witness. He therefore submitted that one of the witnesses who has been examined has not corroborated the version of the incident as stated by the complainant. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani has referred to the testimony of witness at Exh. 20 and submitted that though he has stated about the quarrel, he has not corroborated with regard to the exact utterance which could attract the offence under the Atrocity Act. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order recording the acquittal is just and proper. 10. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani has also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such acquittal appeals and therefore also if the two views are possible it may not be disturbed. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order recording the acquittal is just and proper. 10. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani has also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such acquittal appeals and therefore also if the two views are possible it may not be disturbed. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 (3) GLH 802 in case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta and (2011) 15 SC 365 in case of State of Andhra Pradesh through CBI v. M. Durga Prasad & Ors. 11. In view of this rival submissions and having perused the record and material and also the reasons for recording the acquittal, this court is in complete agreement with the findings and the conclusion arrived at which does not call for any interference. 12. As recorded in the reasons, initially the revision application was preferred and thereafter the matter proceeded further. However, on appreciation of material and evidence, the acquittal is recorded which requires a closer scrutiny. Further, as rightly emphasized by learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani, every opportunity was given when the application Exh. 61 was given for summoning the witnesses which was also allowed. But it was not pressed at the instance of the Complainant. Further, at the fag end the certificate was sought to be produced which was also granted. Therefore having considered the entire material and evidence as discussed in the impugned judgment and order, the findings of acquittal are recorded observing that the ingredients for the offence are not established cannot be said to be erroneous much less perverse. The emphasis made on the aspect of the investigation that it was not investigated by the officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. is no longer res integra. The same aspect has been considered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 1999 dated 1.4.2010. Therefore, when the independent witness at Exh. 20 has not corroborated the version of the complainant with regard to the incident and the findings of acquittal are recorded on appreciation of material and evidence, it hardly calls for any interference in the present appeal. 13. Therefore, when the independent witness at Exh. 20 has not corroborated the version of the complainant with regard to the incident and the findings of acquittal are recorded on appreciation of material and evidence, it hardly calls for any interference in the present appeal. 13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such matters of acquittal appeals referring to the scope of Section 378 of Cr.PC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 274 in case of Murugesan and Ors. v. State through Inspector of Police and AIR 2013 SC 321 in case of Mookkiah & Anr. v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu has made the observation that if the view taken by the court below is possible, the findings of acquittal may not be disturbed. Again in this judgment reference is made to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 in case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka laying down the broad guidelines. 14. Therefore, considering the judgments cited by learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani as well as considering the aforesaid broad guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present appeal cannot be allowed and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Appeal Dismissed