1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 263/2006 Darshansingh Kamaldas Thakur ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 25 th June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Parchure, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ahirkar, learned A.P.P. for non applicant No.1 and Ms. Udeshi, learned counsel for non applicant No. 2. 2. Non applicant No. 2 was charged for an offence punishable under Section 163 and 164 of the the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on the basis of the complaint made by non applicant No. 3. The chargesheet came to be submitted and the prosecution in all examined four witnesses namely, non applicant No. 3, present applicant, one Panch witness and the Investigating Officer. Non applicant No. 3/complainant and the panch witness did not support the prosecution story. The learned Magistrate, therefore, 2 acquitted non applicant No. 2 of all charges under Section 163 and 164 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 3. The present applicant who is owner of the field, filed this revision challenging acquittal of non applicant No.2 on the basis of written statement by non applicant No. 3 in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2006 filed by non applicant No. 2 against applicant and non applicant No. 3 for malicious prosecution. The non applicant No. 3 has stated in the written statement that he did not support the prosecution in the criminal case under Section 163 and 164 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 against non applicant No. 2 as he was threatened by the accused i.e. non applicant No. 2, her husband and father. 4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the verdict of acquittal cannot be interferred with in exercise of revisional powers on the basis of statement made by a witness in some other civil proceeding filed subsequent to the order of acquittal. No 3 other point is made out in the present revision. The revision is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale