( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2007 Shri Vantian Thomas .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.M.S.Puranik i/b. Mr.J.M.Puranik for the applicant. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.M.S.Puranik for the applicant and Ms.Jhaveri for the State. 2. The applicant had filed a private complaint which came to be attended to under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. A police complaint also came to be filed against the respondents and that is how the investigation was taken over by the police and the case was attended to as case instituted on the police report and that is how the job of prosecuting the case was taken over by the police. The learned 3rd Joint J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar acquitted the respondents by a judgement dated 22.2.2007 in regard to charge under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. As regards the advancement of money, a separate case under Section 138 of N.I.Act was filed which came to be dismissed. The learned 3rd Joint J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar acquitted ( 2 ) the respondents primarily on the ground that certain documentary evidence was not proved and what was produced before the Court was the Xerox copies. 3. According to the learned Advocate Mr.Puranik, job done by the learned prosecutor in the matter of proving the documents has not been properly done and to that extent the case is required to be reminded to re-trial so as to enable the original complainant to prosecute the case. 4. Having considered the judgement and the point involved, I am inclined to observe that no interference in the impugned judgement is necessary as prosecution has attended to the matter. May it be that the documents have not been properly proved but now after the acquittal of the respondents, it would not be proper to remit the matter to the trial Court for re-trial. Hence, no interference is required. Revision is rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)