( 1 ) THE present appeal by the State of Gujarat challenges the judgment and order of acquittal dated 3 1/08/1984 in Criminal Case No. 179 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Junagadh acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 18 19 and 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act 1946

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the present appeal on merits it is necessary to bear in mind the well established principle of law that the appellate court should be slow and reluctant to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal unless the same is or amounts to a perversity in law or is eminently opposed to the evidence on record. The appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal order merely because on a re-appreciation of the evidence another view may perhaps be possible.

( 3 ) I am also required to bear in mind the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and reiterated in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy reported at AIR 1981 SC 1417 at para 6 thereof to the effect that when the appellate court concurs with the logic and reasoning of the trial court and confirms the same it does not require to give a detailed and lengthy reasoning in support of the same nor is the appellate court require to re-narrate the entire evidence on record.

( 4 ) WITH these principles in mind I shall now deal with the merits of the present appeal.

( 5 ) THE prosecution case is to the effect that the accused was holding a licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act and had applied for renewal of the licence pertaining to the year 1982. In connection with the application for renewal of the licence the accounts and records of the accused for the period from 1/01/1981 to 31/12/1981 were examined. As a result of this examination it was found that the accused had failed to obtain signatures of the respective debtors in prescribed From No. 8 that he had failed to obtain signatures of the debtors on prescribed From No. 9 and had failed to despatch the annual statement in the prescribed From No. 1; to the concerned debtors under postal certificate. It was also found that the accused had not signed the prescribed From No 9 by hand but had used a rubber stamp of his signature. The accused was therefore charged with having not complied with or having violated the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the said Act and was therefore liable to be punished under Section 34 of the said Act. The complaint at Exh 1 on the record of the case was filed by the Assistant District Registrar (Money Lenders) Junagadh.

( 6 ) THE prosecution has examined Devsurbhai Naranbhai (PW1-Exh. 15) who is the complainant. He holds the post of Assistant District Registrar (Money Lenders) Junagadh. He slates that he had received a letter dated 26/07/1982 under the signature of Registrar (Money Lenders) Rajkot whereby the various facts supposedly constituting the aforesaid offence have been set out etc.

( 7 ) THIS witness who is the complainant fails to support the prosecution case as sought to be made out in the complaint at Exh. 1. This witness was obliged to admit in his cross-examination that he is not familiar with the signature of the accused and has not had any occasion to see the accused making his signature and therefore he is unable to state whether the concerned document bear the signature of the accused or not. He further admits that he has not personal knowledge and therefore cannot make any statement as to whether the signature of the accused had been obtained in the departmental proceedings under pressure and by coercion which is the defence of the accused as per his statement at Exh. 7. This witness further admits that he has no knowledge or information as to whether the relevant case papers had been sent to the District Registrar at Rajkot while obtaining sanction for the present prosecution. This witness further admits that to his knowledge no inculpatory statement had been obtained from the accused particularly a statement wherein the a