Point of Law: Scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal - Acquittal confirmed - If two views of evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting acquittal and other indicating conviction, High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse order of acquittal recorded by trial court.

JUDGMENT :

SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

1. Heard Sri. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri. Anshuman Singh, learned A.G.A. for the appellant and Sri. Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Government Appeal has been filed against the part of the judgment and order dated 17.03.2020 by which the respondent (accused) has been acquitted for charges under Section 143 (1) and 143 (2) of the Railways Act in Criminal Case No. 7461 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Chandrakant Purohit and Another) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. By the same judgment, the co-accused Chandrakant Purohit has been convicted for offence under Section 143 (1) of the Railways Act which is not a matter in issue in this appeal.

3. The prosecution case is that co-accused Chandrakant Purohit is an authorized agent of IRCTC but in greed of more money, he used to sell etickets using his personal ID and reservation tickets from PRS window to the needy persons. On the information received the police party of Railway Protection Force, lead by SI - Hari Ram Yaday accompanying with constable Vikas Vyas and constable Yogendra Khare raided the premises of Anjali Travels where Chandrakant Purohit was found working on computer and on search of the premises in presence of public witnesses Dhani Ram and Channa, 17 e-tickets of future journey amounting to Rs. 39,411/- and 33 PRS window tickets of future journey amounting to Rs. 48005/-, six PRS window tickets of past journey amounting to Rs. 3695/- and 19 cancelled PRS window tickets amounting to Rs. 39,625/- were recovered from the counter. Laptop, printer, mobile phones were also recovered. The recovery memo was prepared by S.I. Hari Ram Yadav. During further enquiry, it was revealed that out of 58 PRS window tickets recovered 41 tickets were booked by respondent (accused) Pratibha Dubey who is an employee of the Railway and was deployed at the booking counter as booking clerk. It was also revealed that Chandrakant Purohit has made various phone calls from his mobile phone (Mob. No. 9450067076) to the accused Pratibha Dubey on her Mob. Nos. 9450034021 and 7080310910 and both have talked 18 times including six times on duty. The Inquiry Officer, S.I. Hari Ram Yadav recorded the statements of some PRS window ticket holders of future journey, the accused persons and other witnesses and after completion of enquiry, filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate.

4. Under 244 Cr.P.C. three witnesses PW-1 (Constable Vikas Vyas) PW-2 (S.I. Hari Ram Yadav) and PW-3 (Raj Kumar Jha) were produced and on this evidence, charges under Section 143 (1) and 143 (2) of Railways Act were framed against both the accused persons namely Chandrakant Purohit and Pratibha Dubey. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. Under Section 246 Cr.P.C. the three witnesses examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C. were reproduced for further cross-examination and ten other witnesses were also examined. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In her statement accused (respondent) Pratibha Dubey, denied the complaints version and further submitted that she has acted as per rules. She has also stated that she is a government employee and no prosecution sanction has been obtained before filing complaint and that she is innocent and has not committed any irregularity. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments of both the parties, by the impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent Pratibha Dubey from all the charges, while recorded the conviction of co-accused Chandrakant Purohit for offence under Section 143 (1) of the Railways Act. Against the order of acquittal of respondent-accused Pratibha Dubey, the State has filed this Government Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the State-appellant contended that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and has decided the case only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. There is ample evidence on record t