- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 1999 REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 1999 REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 1999 Gajanan S. Patil ...Applicant vs. Nagarjun Bhimrao Sonar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ajay Patil i/b Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for the Applicant Mr.B.G.Tangsali for Respondent No.1 Mr.K.V.Saste,A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 13,2005 : OCTOBER 13,2005 : OCTOBER 13,2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Applicant, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and the learned A.P.P. for State. The challenge is to the impugned Judgment and Order by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the offence punishable under Section 408 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After considering the evidence on record the learned Judge held that the entrustment of the amount in question in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not established. 2. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and Order shows that the learned Judge has considered oral and documentary evidence on record and has recorded the findings. It is not permissible to re-appreciate the evidence in the Revision Application. Accordingly, Revision Application is rejected. - 2 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE