IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1672 OF 2006 (For Leave to Appeal) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 (Against the order of acquittal) The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Vs. Vilas Maruti Jadhav and others ... Respondents ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.25 OF 2006 Vilas Maruti Jadhav .. Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2006 Shri Ramu Govind Shinde ... Petitioner Vs. Vilas Maruti Jadhav and others ... Respondents Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Dilip Bodake for the applicant in Rev. Application No.125 of 2006. Mr. R.D. Kate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 30TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. There is a patent error in appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court. Furthermore, even the complainant has preferred a revision against the finding of guilt and conviction recorded by the trial court. 2. We are of the considered opinion that leave needs to be granted. Consequently, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Appeal and the Revision Application both are admitted. It is stated that appeal has also been preferred by the accused i.e. Appeal No.25 of 2006. The same also be listed together. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.