JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Surajit Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. B. Lalramenga, alongwith Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application filed under section 482 of the Cr.PC for quashing and setting aside of the impugned Order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2016. 3. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that on 12.07.2010 FIR was submitted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma which was registered as Bawngkawn PS Case No.271/2010 under section 380 of IPC. On the basis of the FIR, the petitioner was alleged to have stolen the complainant’s wallet where he had kept Savings bank Account ATM Card No. 6220180387700055529, Savings bank Account ATM of SBI No. not known, Pan Card ADSP 6325 D, Driving License No. not known, Service identity card No.313431 cash of Rs.200/- Investigation was conducted and the following items were seized from the locker of the appellant -A total of Rs.1,10,000/-in Rupees thousand and Rupees. Five hundred notes, Identity card no.313431, ATM card no. 6220180170660264742, Pan Card ADSP 6325 D, Driving Lincense RJ-15/DL/226/10018 dated 27.7.2006. During investigation, the appellant admitted withdrawing the money but sated that the money was withdrawn with the permission of the complainant since they were husband sand wife and that the other items found in her locker were given to her by the complainant for safe keeping. A prima facie case was found against the appellant under Section 380/417/419 IPC. Charge sheet was accordingly filed. On framing charge under sections 380/417/419 IPC the appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, wherein as many as 6 prosecution witnesses were examined, the petitioner on examination under section 313 denied all the incrementing evidence stating that she has been falsely implicated in the case because she had filed a domestic violence case against the complainant and that she had kept the ATM cards with her and withdrew the money on the permission of the complainant. The petitioner examined herself as a defense witness and the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner vide Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2016 on benefit of doubt from the liability of Crl. Trl. No.769/2010 A/O Bawngkawn PS Case No. 271/2010 U/s 380 IPC and set at liberty. The petitioner examined herself as a defense witness and the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner vide Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2016 on benefit of doubt from the liability of Crl. Trl. No.769/2010 A/O Bawngkawn PS Case No. 271/2010 U/s 380 IPC and set at liberty. The main ground for acquittal of the petitioner was that the seized articles were not produced before the Court. Aggrieved, the State has approach the Sessions Court, wherein the learned Sessions Court vide it Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2019 set aside the acquittal Order dated 27.05.2016 and remanded back the case for disposal on merit observing that the learned Lower Court had erred in deciding that the seized articles were not produced in the Court. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. Dutta submits that the Judgment & Order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the provision of section 378(1)(a) of the Cr.PC has not been followed, wherein it clearly states that direction has to be given by the District Magistrate but on perusal of the record, it is seen that the a request has been made by the Public Prosecutor which was approved by the District Magistrate. He submits that this cannot be interpreted as a direction in support of his submission he has cited the decision of this Court in Union Territory of Tripura vs. Marfat Ali, reported in [1958] 0 AIR (Gau) 26 alongwith the decision of the Kerela High Court in the case of The State of Kerala vs. Saji @ Dada Saji S/o. Lakshmanan reported in (2021) 2 KLJ 204 : (2021) 2 KLT 13 . 5. The learned senior counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the seized article were not produced in the Court. He submits that on reading of the FIR, it is shown that it is the wallet of the complainant that was alleged to be stolen and that the wallet was not seized or produced before the Court. He further submits that the recovery of the currency notes from the safe of the petitioner cannot be construed to be the alleged stolen notes since there is no identification of the alleged stolen currency notes amounting to Rs.1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh and ten thousand). He further submits that the recovery of the currency notes from the safe of the petitioner cannot be construed to be the alleged stolen notes since there is no identification of the alleged stolen currency notes amounting to Rs.1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh and ten thousand). He submits that the currency notes which were recovered from the safe of the petitioner are the savings of the petitioner, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that she used to receive Rs.10,000/-p.m. from her husband/opposite party. He further submits that the FIR was submitted falsely due to the ongoing dispute between the husband and wife and the appellant had filed a case of domestic violence and the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that all was not well between the husband and wife and the possibilities of the principle that eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth may not be ruled out. 6. He further mentioned that the seizure witnesses were not present at the time when the seized article, i.e., debit card etc. were seized since the seizure witnesses had clearly mentioned that the said seized articles were already seized and were kept on the table by the Seizing Officer. 7. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that as per section 378(a)(1) of the Cr.PC, the permission of the State is not required to file against the acquittal order and that it is clear from the evidence of the seizure witnesses that the seized article were seized and exhibited in the Court as Ext. M-1, Ext.M-3, Ext. M-4 & Ext. M-5. She thus states that the learned Sessions Court has rightly observed that all the seized article were produced in the court and there was no ground to appeal against or set aside the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Court. She further submits that this appeal has been filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the power of the Court is very limited and there is no miscarriage of justice in the present case. She further submits that the direction to appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court was received from the District Magistrate, which is in the record in page 73 of the petition as Annexure-B of the revision petition, page 29. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the document on record. 9. She further submits that the direction to appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court was received from the District Magistrate, which is in the record in page 73 of the petition as Annexure-B of the revision petition, page 29. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the document on record. 9. With regards to whether the provisions of Section 378(1)(a) Cr.P.C. has been complied with in filing the appeal before the Sessions Judge against the acquittal of the petitioner examined, Section 378(1)(a) Cr.P.C. provides that the District Magistrate is empowered to direct the Public prosecutor to file an appeal to the Court of Session for the order of acquittal done by any Magistrate in a matter of cognizable and non-bailable offence. In Union Territory of Tripura vs. Marfat Ali (supra) this court had held that lack of sanction by the Chief Commissioner is fatal to the competency of the appeal as it is clearly prevents the appeal from coining into protective mantle under section 417 Cr.P.C. (before amendment). The power to prefer an appeal against an acquittal has been given under section 417 (1) to an authority no less than the state government with the obvious object that such appeals will be preferred only in cases where there has been miscarriage of justice so grave as would induce the government to move in the matter and thereby prevent harassment of the accused which might otherwise be the result if the matter is left to others or treated lightly. In The State of Kerala Vs. Saji @ Dada Saji S/o. Lakshmanan(supra) by referring to Marfat Ali (supra) case it was held that : “15. The definite and precise object in conferring the power, to decide whether an appeal has to be filed against an order of acquittal, on an authority not less than the State Government as held by the Judicial Commissioner in Marfat Ali is a protective mantle over the accused, who has been acquitted in a trial, with an appeal being filed only in instances of grave miscarriage of justice. The accused, who has been saved from incarceration by the order of acquittal cannot be forced to contest an appeal, which is filed at the mere whim expressed by any officer of the Government and nor even on the studied opinion of the Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial or the conviction of the Investigation Officer. The decision has to come from the Government itself as mandated in Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. and cannot be merely wished away as a procedural requirement or ignored as one directory in nature. On the above reasoning it has to be found that without a direction from the Government it will not be competent for the Public Prosecutor to institute an appeal under section 378(1)(b) against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court; which is the imperative statutory mandate.” 10. In view of the above observations, I am of the considered view that under 378(1)(a) the District Magistrate is required to have applied his mind and give a direction to file an appeal against an order of acquittal, which does not appear to be the case in the instant case. In the instant case the public prosecutor had requested the District Magistrate under section 378(1)(a) for filing an appeal against the judgment dated 27.05.2016 which was allowed. 11. On the perusal of the evidence adduced it is seen that the complainant in his FIR stated that petitioner has stolen his wallet which contained his ATM cards, Pan Card and driving licence. The complainant has deposed as PW5, he has narrated that the accused petitioner was his wife and they had two children and were all living together. His deposition shows that they not in good terms with each other and the petitioner has filed cases against him for domestic violence. During cross examination he has admitted that he did not witness the accused petitioner take the wallet out of his pocket and that he made the direct allegation without having any material fact. He also admitted that since the accused petitioner was his legally married wife he considered her the co-owner of the house including the properties at Aizawl. During cross examination he has admitted that he did not witness the accused petitioner take the wallet out of his pocket and that he made the direct allegation without having any material fact. He also admitted that since the accused petitioner was his legally married wife he considered her the co-owner of the house including the properties at Aizawl. The alleged stolen items were found in the locker of the petitioner no doubt, but the accused petitioner on examination under 313 Cr.PC has denied that she had stolen the items, but stated that the complainant/her husband had given them to her so that she would withdraw the Domestic Violence case against him and that she withdrew the money from the ATM with the knowledge of the complainant. 12. It is also noted that the learned trial court was of the opinion that the seized articles were not produced before the court because the case I,O had deposed accordingly. Thus, it is seen that the seized articles were not produced in the court for the seizing officer to identify the items seized by him. The seized articles were produced before the court when the seizure witnesses PW1 & PW2 deposed in the court. Both have deposed that they did not see from where the seized articles were recovered. It is also noted that the wallet said to be stolen by the petitioner has not been seized. This case is between husband and wife in marital discord, and the evidence shows that the properties alleged to be stolen have been returned to the appellant. The Apex Court in Tota Singh & Anr vs. State Of Punjab on 1 April, 1987 reported in 1987 AIR 1083, 1987 (2) SCR 747 held that:- “2.2. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. 3. 3. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous.” 13. In view of the above observations this court is of the opinion that no injustice will be done in upholding the acquittal of the accused petitioner passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class in it’s Judgment and order dated 27.05.2016 in Crl.Tr.769/2010 and set aside the Judgment & Order dt.22.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No. 9/2016. 14. Crl. Pet. No.3 of 2019 accordingly is allowed and stands disposed. 15. LCR is to be returned.