1 Appln 4515-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4515 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Bajirao Kundlik Mandave ..Respondent Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for the Applicant - State Mr.Dilip Bodake, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an Appeal against acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7(1)(d) of protection of Civil Rights Act. The first 2 Appln 4515-2010 informant was the Sarpanch of the village, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste. When she reached for flag hoisting at the Grampanchayat office on 15th August, 2009, the respondent, who was Deputy Sarpanch hoisted the flag. The Complainant maintained decorum and did say nothing at that time or did not obstruct the flag hoisting. Thereafter, she asked the respondent as to why he had done so whereupon the respondent referred to her caste and abused her stating that she has no right to hoist flag. This incident was witnessed by the two other persons, who have been examined at the trial. The learned Judge held among others case that in the FIR there is no mention of caste of the Complainant and accused and therefore, relying on the Judgment in Manohar M. Kulkarni v/s. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2005 Cri.L.J.4653 stated that the offence was not made out. She also held that the two witnesses, who had been examined had reached the Grampanchayat office 3 Appln 4515-2010 after the incident and therefore, had not witnessed the incident as mentioned in their cross examination and therefore, refused to believe the prosecution version. Even according to the first informant, the incident of abusing took place after the flag hoisting was over and therefore, there is no apparent contradiction. The question whether there was improper appreciation of evidence would have to be examined. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP, view taken by this Court in Manohar Kulkarni' case is no longer good law in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ASHABAI MACHINDRA ADHAGALE Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, reported at (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 789 has been specifically overruled. Leave granted. Admit. Call for R & P. Action under Section 390. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 4 Appln 4515-2010