1 appln.192.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 192 of 2011 in Criminal Revision Application No. 217 of 2011 Maruti Appa Jhondale ....Applicant v/s. Mr. Kalappa Basappa Jangali ....Respondent Mr. M.D. Patil for the applicant. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 7th June, 2011 P.C. This is an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. 2. Criminal Revision Application taken on Board for admission. The Revision Application takes an exception to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-accused against an order of conviction. 3. The Respondent No. 1 was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 420 on the complaint of the present applicant, wherein it was alleged 2 appln.192.11.sxw that accused had taken an amount of Rs. 30,000/- with an assurance to give a job to the son of the applicant. It was alleged that though the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was received, the accused neither provided the job nor returned the amount. 4. The scope of an appeal against acquittal is limited. Unless the finding is found to be perverse, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. Equally, it is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. The learned Appellate Court while considering the evidence on record has found that the only evidence to establish payment was that of PW Tukaram Pawar. It has been found by the learned Appellate Court that there were inimical relations between the accused and the said Tukaram and Tukaram had also filed a complaint against the accused. The learned Appellate Court has, therefore, disbelieved the evidence of the said witness. It has further come on record in the evidence of the witnesses that there was no material on record to show that the complainant was in a position to raise the said amount and also that there was any post of peon vacant on which the accused could have appointed the applicant’s son. 3 appln.192.11.sxw 6. In that view of the matter, no perversity is noticed in the order of the Appellate Court to warrant interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)