1 cri appln 1712.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1712 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Madhav Murlidhar Peddawad .. Respondent Shri S. G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the record and also impugned judgment. The trial Court in para 9 to 12 has considered the prosecution evidence and recorded that the presence of some of witnesses at the spot was doubtful and Court has also recorded that there are improvements in the statement of the complainant himself and statement of other witnesses. The Trial Court has in detail analysed the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and acquitted the respondent. It is admitted position that, complaint was not filed on the date on which alleged incident had taken place. There was delay in filing 2 cri appln 1712.10 the complaint. That apart, nothing has been brought on record either any injury certificate or medical report of the complainant. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. Consequently, there is no question of registering the appeal. The Registration of the appeal is refused. The application stands disposed of. The original record be sent back to the concerned court forthwith. [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 11