JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants have filed this criminal leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar, in Sessions Case No.03/2009 whereby he acquitted the accused-respondents for the charges levelled against them for the offences under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and Sections 3/25 & 4/25 of Arms Act 1959. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.05.2008 at about 6.30 P.M., Mr. Balraj Singh SHO Police Station Lalgarh Jatan and other 8 police officials were on patrolling in a Government Jeep. When they reached near Vidut Vibhag Bhawan, Balwani, they came to know that accused persons namely Sonu, Getta, Nikke, Fojji and Gokul were planning to commit 'Dacoity' in a train which was scheduled for 6.30 P.M. on that day but it was running late by two hours. On the above said information, police party reached near GLR and found 5 persons talking to each other in relation to commit 'Dacoity'/robbery. On this an FIR was registered against the accused-respondents and after due investigation they were charge-sheeted for the above said offences and after completion of trial they were acquitted by the learned trial court vide impugned judgment against which this leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though independent witnesses turned hostile, the police officials supported the incident and there was no reason to disbelieve their statements. However, learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents, therefore, this leave to appeal may be granted. 5. Mr. M.K. Garg and Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the accused-respondents supported the judgment impugned and submitted that there is no ground for granting leave to appeal as the learned trial court, after detailed discussion of evidence, acquitted the respondents-accused. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 7. The learned trial court acquitted the respondents-accused persons on the following grounds:- "1. As per recovery memo Ex.P-3, four accused persons were arrested on the spot and one ran away, therefore, five or more persons were arrested at the spot, has not been proved from Ex.P-3. 2. Sh. Raj Singh (PW-2) an independent witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 3. Mr. As per recovery memo Ex.P-3, four accused persons were arrested on the spot and one ran away, therefore, five or more persons were arrested at the spot, has not been proved from Ex.P-3. 2. Sh. Raj Singh (PW-2) an independent witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 3. Mr. Balraj Singh (PW-8), the SHO Police Station Lalgarh Jatan stated that when he used search light, one of the accused ran away and remaining four were taken hold by other police officials and stated that he heard the conversation of accused persons that who will stop the train but he did not know who was speaking. Therefore, the person who heard the conversation of accused persons regarding planning of 'Dacoity' has not proved the fact. 4. The statements of Mr. Balraj Singh (PW-8) SHO Police Station Lalgarh Jatan and Mr. Ram Swaroop (PW-3) are almost same. 5. There is material difference between the statements of Mr. Balraj Singh (PW-8) SHO Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, Mr. Ram Swaroop (PW-3) and that of Hawa Singh (PW-7) regarding hearing of conversation of the accused persons and the distance from the place of incident from where the 'Mukhbir' informed them regarding the incident. 6. Before issuing Prosecution Sanction (Ex.P-24) the District Magistrate did not inspect the fire arms." 8. The learned trial court relied on Munsi Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar [2002(1) R.Cr.D. 144 (SC)] and Sunil Singh Shankar Singh v. State [(2005) 2 Crime 610 Mumbai]. 9. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the accused were not only acquitted on the ground that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case but also considering that there is material contradiction in the statements of other prosecution witnesses who are none other but the police officials and the Prosecution sanction was issued without inspection of fire arms and prosecution failed to prove that five or more persons were planning for Dacoity/robbery. 10. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting any interference by this court. Therefore, no case is made out for granting leave to appeal. Accordingly this leave to appeal is dismissed.Record of the trial court be sent with a copy of this judgment forthwith.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******