1 APPR 180-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION(ST) NO.316 OF 2010 Hitendra Nath Jha ..Applicant V/s. Daljitsing Dharamsing Gill ..Respondent & anr. Mr.Ashutosh Gole, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the revision against the Judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Notice had been issued to the accused, who had refused to accept the 2 APPR 180-10 notice. Service is proper. For the reasons mentioned in the Application, delay is condoned. 3. Revision is taken up for admission hearing. I have gone through the Judgment with the help of the learned Counsel for the applicant. No witness has identified the offending vehicle. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that spare part of the offending vehicle was found at the spot and that part could have been used by the police to connect the offender to the crime. The stage for doing so was already over. Unless it is shown that part in question was sufficient for identification of the offending vehicle from which it fell, there would be no point in raising such argument. As far as non-examination of Ambadas is concerned, he was panch at the seizure of that part. Therefore, there is no question of non-examination of Ambadas tilting 3 APPR 180-10 the scales in favour of accused. There is no error in the Judgment. 4. Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)