1 APPLN-656.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.656 OF 2011 Shashikant Ananda Kamble .... Applicant Vs. Sukhadev Bhimrao Patil & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri S.D. Rupawate i/b Milind Ingale for the Applicant. Ms V.R. Bhosale, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 16, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Special Judge, Sangli under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby he acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act r/w Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The allegation is that on the incidental day, at a general meeting of the society, the first informant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, asked a question at the end of the meeting as to how the elections of office bearers of the society were held, whereupon the accused is alleged to have hurled caste-based insult at the first informant. The 2 APPLN-656.11 cross-examination of the first informant shows that the first informant was the Director of the society till the year 2005. Elections for the post of Directors were held in 2005-2006 at which he had filed a nomination for contesting from a reserved seat, results whereof were declared on 16-7-2005. It seems that he was not elected or not subjected to election and is not the Director of the society since 2005-2006. In view of this, the learned Judge cannot be said to have erred in concluding that there was no occasion for the applicant to ask a question on 21-9-2008 as to how the elections of office bearers of the society were held and consequently there would be no question of eliciting an insulting response. There are two groups in the village and the two other witnesses who have been examined were members of the Tanta Mukti Samittee, appointed during the regime of Sahebrao Patil as Sarpanch of the village, who is the head of the other group in the village. It cannot be said that the learned Judge wrongly concluded that the evidence of the applicant and the two witnesses could not be relied upon specifically since the incident is based only on verbal abuse. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)