hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 980 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 980 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 980 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2003 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2003 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Ramesh Vitthal Bansode ... Respondent Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for Appellant. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 24, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 24, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 24, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The report of the police indicates that they are unable to trace the whereabouts of the Respondent. The incident is of the year 1.7.1997. . Criminal Application No. 980 of 2006 is for substituted service as contemplated under Section 64 and 65 of the Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2003 was an appeal for leave to appeal. We find that the leave was granted on 5.1.2004. Thereafter we find that 17.8.2006 there was a conditional order passed for removal of office objections within four weeks failing which the matter was to stand dismissed without further reference to the court. The Office objections were not removed and office note indicate that on 15.9.2006 the matter is treated as dismissed. There is no application for restoration. Even otherwise we have considered the order dated 31.1.2003 whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent herein of the offences punishable under section 363, 366, 376 and 506 of I.P.C. We find from the order that the accused was in custody till the order dated 31.1.2003 directing his release. Apart from that the incident as we have pointed out is of 1.7.1997. . We find from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that firstly the prosecution was unable to establish that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and consequently that she had been kidnapped by the respondent herein. From the evidence before us the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecutrix in cross examination after she was declared hostile could not be accepted in view of her earlier statement that she had not been kidnapped. There is however, evidence to indicate that the prosecutrix in fact left the house with her cloths. This would indicate voluntariness on her part. . For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, even otherwise, this is not a fit case for this court to interfere. . In the light of that, application as also appeal stand dismissed. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)