1 CRA-450-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 450 OF 2010 Mr. Vishwas Baburao Pathak .. Petitioner Vs. Rafiq Ahamad Rasul Patel & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. U.R.Mankapure, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.P.D.Pise, Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Rajesh More, APP, for the respondent No.3 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th March, 2011. P.C. 1. The revision is filed against acquittal of the accused-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Regular Criminal Case No.302/1996 by J.M.F.C. Miraj, for the offences under Sections 451,506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. On 7.8.1996, the complaisant lodged a report at the Police Station alleging that there was certain dispute between him and the accused persons in respect of transfer of shares. On 21.7.1996, the accused persons had been to the house of the applicant and had abused and threatened him to transfer shares. It appears that initially, police had registered offences under Sections 451 and 504 read with Sec.34 of IPC and then Sec. 506 of IPC was also added. After hearing 2 CRA-450-10.sxw evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court noted that there was delay of about 17 days in lodging the report of the incident. Taking into consideration the nature of incident, previous disputes and delay in lodging the report, the trial Court held that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant/complainant points out that on 22.7.1996 itself a report was sent to the police by telegram and as no action was taken a complaint was sent by post to the Police Inspector, Miraj as well as the Superintendent of Police on 24.7.1996. However, these facts were not brought to the notice of the trial Court at the time of trial. According to him, the incident pertained to 21.7.1996, while the report was sent to the police on 24.7.96 and thus there was no inordinate delay. Even if it is accepted to be correct, as per the report on 21.7.1996 the accused persons had come to the house of the complainant without consent and were demanding money and at that time they had abused and threatened. It appears that there was dispute between the parties about payment of certain amount. The accused also filed a complaint under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the present applicant. 4. The trial Court did not believe the prosecution evidence. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the said order does not 3 CRA-450-10.sxw appear to be per se wrong, is illegal or perverse. 5. Therefore, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)