mst FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.345 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.293 OF 2000 Limbaji Nana Chavan Applicant versus Balgonda Appa Patil and others Respondents Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders M.R.Katikar for applicant. A.T.Javeri, APP for State. A.B.Vagyani for respondent no.1 to 44. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard advocate for the applicant and the advocate for the contesting respondents. In view of averments made in the application, the judgement and order dated 15th June 2009 is recalled and Criminal Revision Application No. 293 of 2000 is restored. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.293 OF 2000 Limbaji Nana Chavan Applicant versus Balgonda Appa Patil and others Respondents M.R.Katikar for applicant. A.T.Javeri, APP for State. A.B.Vagyani for respondent no.1 to 44. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd July 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 44. 2. The original complainant has filed this criminal revision application challenging the judgement and order dated 17th May 2000 passed by the Sessions Court in Special Case No.25 of 1994. By the said impugned judgement and order, the respondents accused have been acquitted for various offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 and under the provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The accused were also acquitted from all other offences alleged against them under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused has produced for my perusal a copy of the judgement and order dated 17th April 2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.876 of 2000. The said appeal was preferred by the State for challenging the impugned order of acquittal. By the said order dated 17th April 2001, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on merits as well as on the ground that there was an unexplained delay in preferring the appeal. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Division Bench has not dismissed the appeal against acquittal on merits. However, a perusal of the order dated 17th April 2001 passed by the Division Bench shows that the appeal is dismissed on two grounds. First is that there was no merit in the appeal and the second is that the appeal was barred by limitation. As the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal against acquittal has declined to interfere with the impugned order, in this criminal revision application against the same order of acquittal, no interference can be made. 5. The criminal revision application is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)