JUDGMENT We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the trial court's judgment on record. 2. This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 30.11.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2008 (State Vs. Vinod and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 501 of 2007, under Sections 302, 201 & 120B IPC, P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jaunpur whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the 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. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal is also dismissed. Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. Ramdeen Vs State of U.P. And 4 Others Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 1051 of 2016 8.3.2016 For the Petitioner : Chandra Bhan. For the Respondent : G.A. Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. of 2016. Since the appeal has been filed within time, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is misconceived. Hence dismissed.