IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 174 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Sangamner (City), District: Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER [ORI.COMPLAINANT] VERSUS 1. Sharad S/o Narayan Thorat, Age: 40 years, Occu.: Agri. 2. Dipak Haribhau Thorat, Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agri. 3. Yogesh Prataprao Thorat, Age: 25 years, Occu.: Agri. 4. Kiran Prataprao Thorat, Age: 23 years, Occu.: Agri. All R/o Jorve, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS. [ORIG. ACCUSED]. *** Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Petitioner. Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Advocate i/b Mr. D. D. Pokharkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: 24th AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard at admission stage. 2. The State feels aggrieved by order below Exhibit-5 in Sessions Case No.48 of 2007 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, district Ahmednagar wherein he has discharged the accused for the offences punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. With the assistance of both the counsel, I have gone through the record, which is available with A.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused. Except one statement of More the other witnesses are relations of the complainant. The requirement of public view as has been indicated in the judgment reported in (2004) Delhi Law Crimes 915 in the matter of "Daya Bhatnagar and others V/s State" referred by brother Judge in his order in the matter of "Balu S/o Bajirao Galande V/s State of Maharashtra and another" reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3197 being missing the infraction of provisions of section 3 (1) (x) of the Act will not come into acceleration. 4. The charge sheet is filed. There is nothing before the Court to indicate that at any place, after 14th June, 2007, caste of the accused/ applicant to be belonging to other caste than the one in terms of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is indicated. Though I find there was an application dated 6th June, 2007 given by the complainant to the Sangamner City Police Station wherein caste of accused No.1 was mentioned to be Maratha. However, as stated earlier, it does not find place in the entire charge sheet. The learned Judge, based on the several authorities placed before him, justifiably reached to the conclusion that the accused Nos.1 to 4 needs to be discharged for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. The position of law is enunciated by the Apex Court in the matter of "Ashabai Machindra Adhagale V/s State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2009 (1) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 779 and also in the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of "Pushpa Vijay Bonde V/.s State of Maharashtra" reported in (2009) 3 Mh.L.J. 489. 6. The observations of learned Additional Sessions Judge in discharging the accused cannot be questioned to be flowing from perversity or non application of mind. The order does not smack at the threshold. Consequently, no interference. Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Rule discharged. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:24/08/2009. ans/174