- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision has been preferred by the State of U. R against order of discharge dated 2-1-1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Co-operative, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. From the findings of the courts below, it appears that the opposite party has not been discharged but he has been acquitted by the impugned order. As the accused-opposite party has been acquitted, the revision is not entertainable in view of the remedy available under Section 378, Cr. P. C.
(2.) HEARD learned A. G. A. for the revisionist and Sri Tej Prakash, learned Counsel for the opposite party and perused the relevant papers. Learned State Counsel submitted that it appears that the heading of the memorandum has been shown inadver tently or erroneously as criminal revision but in the body, it is mentioned that it is an appeal on behalf of the State of U. P. against the impugned order, but I am not in agreement with the submission of learned State Counsel inasmuch as in case the appeal under Section 378, Cr. P. C. would have been preferred, the State is required to move an application for special leave of the Court to file an appeal against acquit tal. From the record it does not appear that any application for special leave was moved on behalf of the State against the impugned order. However, I have gone through the impugned order. The accused opposite party was charged for embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 6089. In view of the proposal Nos. 4 and 5 of Sanchalak Mandal, the amount of Rs. 5,300 had been accounted, for which the opposite party was not required to give any explanation or clarification. For the remaining amount of Rs. 789 the accused had claimed the same towards travelling allowance and other expenses. The trial Court had recorded-good reasons for acquitting the accused-opposite party on the basis of evidence on record. I do not find any good ground to interfere the findings recorded by the trial Court.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the revision is dis missed. Revision dismissed. .;