IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3447 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2005 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT V/S DIPAK A. PATIL ..RESPONDENT SHRI Y.M. NAKHAWA, APP FOR THE STATE. SHRI P.R. ARJUNWADKAR FOR RESPONDENT. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. The State is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 2-12-2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Pune, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and 119/177 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Prosecution case is that the accused who was driving the fiat car dashed the tempo rickshaw as a result of which the tempo rickshaw crossed the divider and due to the said dash two persons who were occupying the said tempo rickshaw were thrown out and later on died. Prosecution has examined five witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Shivaji, driver of the SRP Van, P.W. 2 Sampat, the person who was sitting in the SRP Van, P.W. 3 Shinde, the complainant, P.W. 4 - Suresh and P.W. 5 Unawane the Investigating Officer. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Respondent/Accused was not negligent and the driver of the tempo rickshaw had suddenly stopped the rickshaw and as a result the accident had taken place. The trial court has recorded the finding that the driver of the fiat car was not responsible for the incident. In my view, there is no scope for interference with the finding recorded by the trial court. 3. No case is made out for grant of leave to file Appeal. Leave is therefore refused. --- (V.M. KANADE, J) (V.M. KANADE, J) (V.M. KANADE, J)