1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No.328/2010 ( Sau. Kamal w/o Somaji Nikhare ..Vs.. Dilip s/o Ramchandra Gajpure & others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Adv. for applicant/appellant. Mr. V.N. Morande, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mrs. Anita P. Shinde, Adv. for respondent no.2. Mr. S.V. Sirpurakar, Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 11.7.2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Despite the fact that the respondent no.1 was not owner of the disputed plot he had agreed to sell the same on 28/8/2001 by representing that the plot is owned by him. In fact, he had no title to the same. The plot was owned by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 had executed an agreement of sale in his favour on on 28/7/2001. It is alleged that this fact was concealed by the respondent no.1. When the time for performance of the contract was over, he was the respondent no.1 who sought its extension twice. Only after the complainant issued him notice, the respondent no.1 disclosed about his imperfect title. That being so, there is a good ground to question the acquittal of the respondent no.1. 2 3. So far as respondent nos.2 and 3 are concerned they had nothing to do with the transaction between the complainant and the respondent no.1. In that light of the matter, their acquittal is fully justified. 4. Leave to file an appeal, so far as it relates to the respondent no.1, is granted. Leave is refused so far as it relates to the respondent/accused no.2 and respondent/accused no.3. 5. Appeal : Admit against respondent no.1 only. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Therefore, action under section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with. JUDGE Tambaskar.