( 1 ) BY this appeal, the state challenges the acquittal of Harbhajan Singh, the respondent herein for offences under Sections 186/353/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment was passed by Shri Dinesh Dayal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 1st May, 1978.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that on 12th August, 1974, the respondent herein Harbhajan Singh who was working as a Sorter in the Railway Mail Service entered the office of Shri N. R. Mehta, who was then working as a Deputy Superintendent in the Sorting Division, without permission. The allegations are that he asked his superior officer has to how his duty had been changed and also gave him a slap while abusing him. On Shri Mehta s saying that be would call the Police, it is alleged that the respondent threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter the accused (the respondent herein) left the office and Shri N R. Mehta lodged a report with the Police, which was exhibited as Ex. Public Witness. 1/a.

( 3 ) THE learned trial court acquitted the respondent mainly on three grounds:

(1) That the sentence relating to the threat which the respondent gave to Mr. Mehta, was added in the report (Ex. P W. 1/a) later on. That sentence has separately been added by Mr. Mehta in his hand where as the report has been typed. (2) That the prosecution witnesses Nathu Ram (P. W. 3) and Dharam Singh (P. W. 4) did not support the assertion of PW. 1 N. R. Mehta. (3) That the prosecution has tried to improve its case as it was aware that the allegations contained in the report (Ex. PW. 1/a) lodged with the Police, do not make out a case against the respondent herein.

( 4 ) WITH the assistance of Mr. Bakshi, we have gone through the record.

( 5 ) WE have no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial Court. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial Court was the only view which was possible on the evidence led by the prosecution. The appeal fails and it is dismissed.