SM 1 36.appr.20.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 20 OF 2009 Vishnu Pandurang Jadhav ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ....Respondents ____________ Shri. Anand Patil l with Mr. S. A. Ingale for the Applicant. Mr. S. V. Kotwa, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI , J. DATED : 11 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Revision Application is taken up for admission by consent of the parties. 2. Mr. Ingale, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Trial Court has made an error in acquitting accused merely on the basis of some minor omissions. 3. It would reveal that the Trial Court has come to a finding that with respect to the same incident, there were two F.I.Rs. lodged. In sofar as the F.I.R. at the instance of the present applicant is concerned, it was lodged after a period of 17 hrs. The learned Trial Court has found that no plausible explanation has SM 2 36.appr.20.09 been given by the complainant for such an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. It has been found that the son of the complainant was working in a Bank at Bhopal and the F.I.R. might have been lodged after consultation with him. It has further been found that only eyewitness were the complainant and his servant Shripati. It has further been found that Shripati himself was facing a case for the charge of rape. The Trial Court, therefore, found that the evidence of this witness was not of such a nature, which would inspire confidence. 4. It cannot be said that the Court below has acquitted the accused persons either in perverse or illegal manner. Therefore, no perversity or illegality is noticed in the impugned order warranting interference. Rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)