JUDGMENT We have heard Sri P.K. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant-informant, learned A.G.A for the State-respondent no. 1 and perused the trial court's judgment and record. Cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. Delay is condoned. 2. Accordingly Delay Condonation Application is allowed. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Khurja, District Bulandshahr dated 11.02.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No. 311 of 2014 [State versus Smt. Rajwati and others], arising out of Case Crime No. 189 of 2013, under Sections 368, 120-B IPC, P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahr, acquitting the accused-respondent nos. 2 to 4 of the offence punishable under Sections referred to above. 3. On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence provides no ground for interfering with the order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the Criminal Appeal, hence it is dismissed accordingly.