The central legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond doubt, and the Trial Court's decision can only be interfered with if it is found to be perverse or results in a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra under Sec. 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dtd. 3/8/2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nashik Road, in Regular Criminal Case No.16 of 2001 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sec. 381 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of prosecution is that the accused no.1 was serving with Indian Security Press. He removed 1,000 stamp papers of Rs.1,000.00 denomination and handed over the same to the co- accused for sale. During the course of investigation 500 stamp papers of Rs.1,000.00 each were recovered from accused nos.2 to 5. Search at the residence of accused no.1 had resulted in recovery of 1,500 stamps of Rs.1,000.00 denomination. The complaint was lodged by various persons on behalf of India Security Press. During the course of investigation accused were arrested and directed to be released on bail. On completing investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. Charge was framed against accused u/s.381 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code vide order dtd. 25/10/2002. The charge indicate that prior to four months of 24/10/2000, the accused no.1 was in service with Security Press and committee theft of 1,000 stamps of Rs.1,000.00 each and in furtherance of common intention handed over them to accused nos.2 to 5 for sell and thereby committed offence punishable under Ss. 381 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses in support of its case. The statement of accused was recorded thereafter u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. For the reasons stated in the judgment, the accused were acquitted of the offences charged against them. It appears that respondent no.3 was dead during the course of trial and case against him had abated.

5. Learned APP submitted that learned Trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence. The prosecution has been able to prove through evidence of independent witness PW-1 that the accused no.1 was involved in siphoning of/theft of number of stamp papers from the India Security Press and they were handed over to other accused for the purpose of sell. The evidence of other witnesses corroborates the prosecution case. The offence is of serious nature. Huge number of stamp papers were recovered during the course of investigation. The panch witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The learned Judge has overlooked the evidence of PW-1 who is the star witness and the other witnesses who have supported the prosecution case. There was sufficient evidence to establish that accused have committed theft of stamp papers. The Trial Court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that four months prior to 24/10/2000, the accused no.1 was in service with India Security Press and was involved in theft of stamp papers with other accused. There was no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses and hence the judgment of Trial Court is perverse and deserves to be set aside. The prosecution had examined the panch witnesses involved in the seizure of stamp papers. The evidence of independent witnesses has not been considered by the Trial Court. The demonstration panchanama also corroborates the prosecution case. On flimsy grounds the Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of witnesses adduced by prosecution. Police Inspector Deshmukh and PSI Pawar were part of raiding party. PSI Pawar prepared seizure panchanama. The seizure is corroborated and minor infirmities do not affect the case of prosecution. The prosecution had examined about seven witnesses and thus there was no reason to discard their evidence. The prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Soni representing the respondents- accused has submitted that this Court is dealing with the appeal against acquittal. The parameters for deciding an appeal against acquittal has been laid down by Supreme Court and this Cou