1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 4 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Vs. Raju K. Khetwani & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P. S. Hingorani for the Applicant-State. Mr. M. S. Mohite for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 26, 2010. P.C. This application is filed for condonation of 106 days delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application. This Application is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. After taking into consideration the ground mentioned for the delay, the delay is condoned. The Criminal Revision Application is taken on board for admission. 2. Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Original Complainant, the learned A.P.P. submits that the learned Trial Courts has grossly heard in discharging the accused in as much as there is ample evidence to implicate the accused. 2 3. On perusal of the order impugned, it reveals that the learned Trial Court has found that even if the material on which the prosecution relied is fully accepted, cannot show that the accused have committed the alleged offence. 4. In any event, it has been found that the criminal prosecution was launched on the basis of the order passed by the earlier Competent Authority holding that the accused were holding the land in excess of prescribed ceiling limits, which was quashed and set aside by the State Government and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority on remand found that Respondents did not hold the land in excess of the ceiling limits. The very basis on which the criminal prosecution was lodged had ceased to exist in view of the subsequent order of the Competent Authority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned trial Court is erroneous. 5. The Application is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]