JUDGMENT : Subhash Kakade, J. 1. This appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the State assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 12/5/1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Jabalpur (MP) in Criminal Case No. 1004/96. By the judgment under challenge, learned trial judge acquitted the respondent, hereinafter referred as 'the accused', from the charges punishable under Sections 186, 294, 332 & 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. To appreciate the say of the appellant State, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that on 08/11/1996 when complainant Fattelal performing his official duty, accused Ramesh had obstructed him from performing the official duty and abused him in the public place. 3. Learned trial Court framed charge punishable under Sections 186, 294, 332 and 353 the Indian Penal Code against the accused who abjured his guilt; therefore, he was put to trial. 4. The prosecution has examined complainant Fattelal (PW/1), Kotwar Amar Singh (PW/2), Postman Chain Singh (PW/3), SHO, Devendra Kumar Tiwari (PW/4) and Sub Inspector K.B. Singh (PW/5) and exhibited 3 documents to prove his case. During the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the evidence put up against him and pleaded his innocence. Defence did not examined any witness. 5. Learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the State by taking into the entire judgment and main grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal has pointed out error that has allegedly committed at the time of recording of the findings of acquittal by the learned trial Court. 7. Learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence of Patwari Fattelal (PW/1) found material contradictions, omissions in his evidence. It is also apparent from the admission of the complainant Fattelal (PW/1), he was not able to state the correct date of incident during his cross-examination. He denied this fact that incident was happened on 08/11/1996 as indicated in FIR Ex.P/2 and in his police statement Ex.D/1. It is pertinent to mention here that by profession Fattelal (PW/1) is a Patwari i.e. an educated person, therefore, this contradictory admission of a public servant regarding the date of incident cannot be ignored. He denied this fact that incident was happened on 08/11/1996 as indicated in FIR Ex.P/2 and in his police statement Ex.D/1. It is pertinent to mention here that by profession Fattelal (PW/1) is a Patwari i.e. an educated person, therefore, this contradictory admission of a public servant regarding the date of incident cannot be ignored. This contradictory statement of the complainant creates serious doubt. Complainant Fattelal (PW/1) also admitted that in his public service period once he was suspended due to political reasons. In the light of these admissions, it is also pertinent to mention here that it is not proved by the prosecution that for what official purpose Patwari Fattelal (PW/1) was present on the spot on the date of incident. 8. Patwari Fattelal (PW/1) stated that at the time of incident, apart from postman Chain Singh, Kotwar Amar Singh, wife of ex- sarpanch and two other persons were also present. Reasons best known to the prosecution why this lady and these villagers are not examined. 9. It is also apparent from the record that Amar Singh (PW/2) is the Kotwar and Chain Singh (PW/3) is the postman, both of them by profession, are more or less learned towards the complainant. 10. The learned Panel Lawyer could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in an appeal against acquittal is not called for. 11. Hence this appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.