[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.903 OF 2006 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Ramchandra Tukaram Mohite and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State None for Respondents. ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Shirala in RCC No. 55 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondents- original accused nos.1 and 2 of the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that the complainant was working as a conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation at Shirala Depot. On 3.9.2004 he was on duty as a bus conductor. At [-2-] about 9.25 a.m. some unknown persons entered in the bus. They caught hold of the shirt of the complainant and assaulted him with fist and kicks on his mouth and chest. The buttons of the shirt of the complainant were broken and his pocket was torn. FIR came to be lodged by him against one Ramchandra and another unknown person. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant did not know any of the accused persons prior to the incident. Lateron the complainant came to know that name of one of the accused was Ramchandra, hence, it is so mentioned in the complaint. Admittedly, the accused persons were not known to the complainant prior to the incident and hence name of the accused no.2 is not mentioned in the FIR. However, though the accused were unknown, no test identification parade has been held. [-3-] 5. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the complainant was on duty on that day. The prosecution has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that complainant was a public servant and he was on duty on that day. It is expected that prosecution ought to have placed on record muster roll or any other document to show that complainant was discharging his lawful duty as public servant on the day of incident. 6. The learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the above facts and thereafter, he has acquitted the Respondents accused. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. 7. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]