JUDGMENT : [1] Rule. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.5-State. [2] The present leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant–original complainant, Hajrabibi Vilayathusen Pathan against the Judgment and order dated 17.10.2014 rendered by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapadvanj, in Criminal Case No.350 of 2007. The said case was registered against the respondents-accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under Sections-384, 447, 448, 461, 219 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. [3] Heard. Mr.S.K.Bukhari, learned advocate for the applicant-complainant and Ms.Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.5-State of Gujarat. [4] Mr.S.K.Bukhari, learned advocate for the applicant-complainant contended that in present case, sufficient documents in form of oral and documentary were produced before the learned trial Judge, but the learned trial Judge did not consider the same. He read the oral evidence of the witnesses and argued that as far as allegation made against the present respondents-accused are concerned, learned trial Judge committed a grave error by observing totally in negative manner and against the provision of law. He further contended looking to the allegation made against respondent No.1-Shantaben Makwna, she committed a grave error under the colour of her duty and therefore, provision of Section-197 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be applicable to the observation of learned trial Judge that no sanction was obtained to prosecute against respondent No.1-accused. He then read the evidence of PW-5-Saiyed Memmudali Isubali, examined at Exh.50. It is disclosed by him that lock of the second room was opened with the help of iron rod and articles were taken away by all the respondents-accused. He submitted that the said articles were recovered under panchnama, but the said panchnama could not produce on record by the complainant. He then argued that presumption is required to be drawn against the respondents-accused from the evidence of the witnesses and judgment and order of the acquittal is required to be set aside. Lastly, he argued that prima-facie sufficient evidence is produced on record, but the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents-accused and therefore, he prayed to allow this application. Lastly, he argued that prima-facie sufficient evidence is produced on record, but the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents-accused and therefore, he prayed to allow this application. [5] Ms.Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.5-State drew attention of the Court to the evidence and contended that in support of the prosecution case, prosecution could not produce any panchnama of the muddamal articles taken away by the respondents-accused. She submitted that in absence of material evidence produced on record, learned trial Judge rightly acquitted the respondents-accused from the alleged charge levelled against them. Lastly, she prayed to dismiss the application. [6] I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. As per the evidence produced on record against respondent No.1-accused, PSI, just to obey the order of the authority, permission was obtained by respondent No.1 and then in Government vehicle, she visited the place of so-called offence under the colour of her official duty. Further, as per the direction, she conducted the recovery of the articles from the possession of father-in-law of present applicant-complainant and the said articles were taken by her. Therefore, it is the duty of the complainant to obtain panchnama or seizure memo from the public servant, under whose presence articles were recovered. But Mr.Bukhari, learned counsel for the applicant-complainant is unable to convince the Court that whether that articles were seized under any documentary evidence. Further from the evidence of PW-5, whose evidence is read over by Mr.Bukhari, I have tried to find out from the paper book produced by Mr.Bukhari, in support of evidence of the said witness, who disclosed before the learned trial Judge that lock of the second room was obtained with the help of iron road. So, there must be some signing of pressure or force used by respondent No.1 or others, which can only be proved by producing evidence in form of panchnama, photographs or videography. The applicant-complainant has never raised such contention before the learned trial Judge that under such pressure or force, respondents-accused committed criminal offence. Learned trial Judge rightly observed in judgment and order that the applicant could not establish her case against the respondents-accused and therefore, rightly acquitted the respondents-accused in absence of any evidence. The applicant-complainant has never raised such contention before the learned trial Judge that under such pressure or force, respondents-accused committed criminal offence. Learned trial Judge rightly observed in judgment and order that the applicant could not establish her case against the respondents-accused and therefore, rightly acquitted the respondents-accused in absence of any evidence. I am in full agreement with the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge. There in no substance in the present application and the arguments made by the learned advocate for the applicant-complainant. Though learned advocate for the applicant tried to establish his case, but the Court did not find any sufficient evidence to consider and entertain this application for leave to appeal. [7] In view of the above, present application for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2014 rendered by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapadvanj, in Criminal Case No.350 of 2007, acquitting the respondents–accused is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond shall stand cancelled. Rule is discharged.