1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2009 Shri Pravin Prakash Jadhav .... Applicant Vs. Shri Ramesh Annappa Kadam & Ors. .... Respondents Mr.R.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.r. Shinde, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 30th July, 2009 P.C. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the Advocates for final hearing of the application. The complainant files this Criminal Revision Application to challenge the order of acquittal dated 21st October 2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kagal in Summary Criminal Case No.65 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Section 342, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The complainant has pointed out clear negligence on the part of the State in not examining the Investigating Officer as also the material witness, Ravindra Patil who was confined along with the complainant. Mr.Shinde, learned APP is unable to offer any explanation for non examination of these two witnesses. He has then fairly conceded that the matter can be remanded to the trial Court for the limited purpose of examining these two witnesses. Hence, the order. 2 O R D E R 1. The Criminal Revision Application No.460 of 2009 is allowed. 2. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for the limited purpose of the prosecution examining Ravindra B. Patil and the investigating Officer. The trial Court thereafter to hear both sides on their submissions advanced and decide the matter afresh. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)