- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3953 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.3953 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.3953 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Pushpalata Shridhar Sawant & others ...Respondents Mr.A.S.Shitole,A.P.P. for the Applicant Mr.B.R.Patil for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 6,2006. : OCTOBER 6,2006. : OCTOBER 6,2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates appearing for the parties. The acquittal of the Respondents is for offences punishable under sections 323, 325, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. After having heard the learned A.P.P. for State and after perusing the impugned judgment and Order, I find that no case is made out for grant of leave. Admittedly there is a delay of 23 to 24 days in registration of the F.I.R. The learned Judge has considered the evidence of witnesses. In fact, there are only two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. After considering the evidence of the eye witnesses, the learned trial Judge has disbelieved their evidence. Considering the delay in filing the F.I.R., I find that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. No case is made out. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE