1 Meera IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2518 of 2008 Rajkumar K. Shrivastava ..Applicant Vs. Girish Damodar Pandit & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Rajesh Datar for the Applicant Mr. M.S.Mohite for Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 Mr. S.R.Shinde APP for State Coram: A.R.Joshi, J Date : 30th June, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is the leave Petition preferred by the Applicant-original Complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane on 22.04.2008. By the said order of acquittal Respondents No.1 to 3 were acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 406 read with section 34 of IPC. 3. Perused the reasoning given by the trial Magistrate in the 2 impugned judgment and order. Also appraised the effect of the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. Though there were totally 11 witnesses examined, nothing to be brought on record on behalf of the complainant that the machinery allegedly supplied by him to the partnership firm of complainant and Respondent, was owned by him and it was so given on rent to the partnership firm. 4. It appears that some time in January 1999, partnership business amongst the Complainant and 3rd Respondent started and allegedly that time the laundry business machinery owned by the Complainant was taken on rent. Admittedly the Deed of Partnership came to be effected after about one year and ten months of the starting of the partnership business of laundry. Admittedly none of the clauses of the partnership Deed mentioned as to complainant bringing his own machinery on rent for the use of the partnership business of running laundry. In fact some of the witnesses examined by complainant mentioned that on knowing from somebody else they came to know that the said machinery was belonging to the Complainant. Apparently it was not their first hand knowledge as to the ownership of the machinery vesting in the Complainant. One of the witness specifically mentioned that he sold particular machinery to the Complainant somewhere in the year 2000, whereas according to the complainant all his machineries were allegedly given for the partnership firm in the year 1999 itself. 3 5. Considering the above state of substantive evidence brought before the trial Magistrate and considering no mention regarding complainant bringing his own machinery on rent or otherwise for the purpose of the partnership business, trial court came to the conclusion of failure of proof of the charge for the offences punishable u/s 406 of IPC, against Respondent and in the opinion of this court rightly so. Under these circumstances there is nothing to allow the present leave Petition so as to again re agitate the matter in Appeal before this court. In the result present leave Petition is dismissed and accordingly disposed off. (A.R.Joshi, J)