JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. This leave to appeal is sought against an order dated 22nd January, 2004 passed by learned A.S.J., Delhi, by which respondent’s appeal was allowed and his conviction and sentence under Section 337/304-A IPC was set aside. The respondent had been convicted by learned M.M. of the aforesaid offences and had been awarded a sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/-. No sentence of imprisonment was passed against the respondent by the learned M.M. in view of the fact that he was facing trial for the last a out 20 years and was aged about 76 years.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, perusing the impugned order of acquittal and the evidence on record, this Court finds that the Appellate Court had allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent mainly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accident in question had taken place due to any negligence on the part of the respondent. The accident in question was between two trains. According to prosecution, the train being driven by the respondent had hit against a stationary train standing near Seelam Pur. Learned Appellate Court found that it had come in prosecution evidence itself that the collision between the two trains was on account of the failure of the brakes of the train which was being driven by the respondent. Prosecution witness, PW-2, had admitted that when the respondent tried to apply the breaks, he found that there was total absence of vacuum in the breaks of the engine. It was also found that the prosecution had not proved on record that the guard of the stationary train had used the detonators to warn the approaching train of the respondent in terms of Rule (280) of the Railway Rules. It was further found from the evidence of PW-2 that the signals were not visible and as such possibility was there that the accident had not taken place on account of any negligence on the part of the respondent.
3. The leave to appeal against an order of acquittal can be granted only in those cases where it is shown that the impugned order is perverse, illegal on the face of it or suffers from a manifest error. When acquittal is ordered upon appreciation of the evidence and a view is taken which is possible, the Court hearing an appeal has no justification to substitute its own view in place of the view taken by the Lower Court. Even otherwise, the respondent is now aged about 80 years and has suffered enough is the incident was of the year 1980.
4. Thus, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal as prayed.
5. The application, therefore, stands dismissed.