[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rambabu on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24462
1 MCRC-5681-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5681 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAMBABU
Appearance:
Smt. Priyanka Mishra - G.A. for the petitioner/State .
ORDER
This matter comes up on an application filed by the appellant/State
under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of
leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ajaygarh, District Panna in Criminal Case
No.96/2012, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offence
punishable under Rule 53(1) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.
2. As per the prosecution story , a sand quarry situated at Village
Bheena Chandipathi, Tahsil Ajaygarh, District Panna, was allotted to one
Hamid Ali (contractor) for a specified period. A complaint was made by
villagers alleging illegal extraction of sand beyond the allotted area. Acting
upon the complaint, a joint inspection was conducted by officials of the
Mining and Revenue Departments. During inspection, a truck bearing
registration No. UP-77N/1761 loaded with sand was seized, and the driver
(present respondent) allegedly fled from the spot. After completing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24462
2 MCRC-5681-2016
procedural formalities and site inspection, it was found that illegal mining
and transportation of sand was being carried out. Consequently, a complaint
was filed against the respondent under Rule 53(1) of the M.P. Minor Mineral
Rules, 1996.
3. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent on the ground that the
prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
respondent was involved in illegal transportation. There was no reliable
identification or cogent evidence connecting the respondent with the seized
vehicle. The evidence adduced was insufficient to bring home the guilt of the
accused.
4. Learned Government Advocate submits that the trial Court failed
to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. There exists a statutory
presumption under Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules. The acquittal
is perverse and contrary to law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused
the record. At the stage of granting leave to appeal against acquittal, the
Court is required to examine whether the judgment of acquittal is manifestly
illegal, perverse, or suffers from gross misappreciation of evidence. It is a
settled principle of law that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence
on record, the view taken by the trial Court favoring the accused should not
be interfered with.
6. In the present case, the identity of the respondent as driver of the
seized vehicle has not been conclusively proved. No independent witness has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24462
3 MCRC-5681-2016
supported the prosecution case regarding involvement of the respondent. The
alleged fleeing from the spot is not substantiated by reliable evidence. The
prosecution has failed to establish conscious possession or involvement in
illegal transportation. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on
proper appreciation of evidence and it does not appear to be perverse or
illegal.
7. It is well settled that appellate interference in an order of acquittal
is limited. Unless the conclusions drawn by the trial Court are wholly
unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, interference is unwarranted. In
the present case, no such exceptional ground is made out.
8. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is well
reasoned. No perversity or illegality is demonstrated. No case for grant of
leave to appeal is made out.
9. The application seeking grant of leave to appeal under Section
378(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Jasleen
