Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be quashed and set aside because the trial Court ignored the fact that accused respondent had not deposited the tax. On account of non-deposition of the tax, the alleged vehicle was seized. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the receipt produced by the accused respondent was a forged document and which was obtained fraudulently by affixing the number plate of seized truck on another truck but the trial court had no considered these facts. So, judgment dated 25.03.2006 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the accused respondent be convicted for the alleged offences. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. Trial Court while acquitting the accused respondent elaborately discussed the evidence led by the petitioner (Prosecution Side). It is an admitted position that the alleged vehicle possessed the golder token. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, in his statement admitted the fact that golden token was issued to the alleged vehicle. The tria Court noted the fact that golden token was issued after verification of the fact that tax was paid. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused respondent.That since the Rules of 1954 are clear and unambiguous, the experience for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer has to be counted on the post of Assistant Engineer from the date a person has been promoted under the Rules of 1954. Where, in the facts ofthe the present case, the private respondents being Diploma Holders, were only upgraded as opposed to promoted on the said post, after the amendment on 23.05.2008, that while placing reliance upon the said judgments, learned counsel submitted that 'promotion' and 'upgradation' are two different notions and therefore, are distinguishable. At this juncture, it was averred that in upgradation, the assessment of the eligible candidate is not made and straight away, appointment is given on the upgraded post after abolition of the lower post. In the present case, the private respondents were upgradeds on the post of Assistant