[1] IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2322 OF 2004 Pandurang Madeo Rahate .... Petitioner Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., and others .... Respondents Petitioner in-person. Shri S.S. Parab for the Respondent No.1. Shri D.S. Mhaispurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No.4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & P.V. KAKADE, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2005 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while recording in the roznama dated 1-1-2002 wrongly recorded the presence of the complainant when, according to the petitioner, in fact the complainant was absent. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that on account of the alleged manipulation in the roznama, proceedings under Sections 161 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be initiated against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner, appearing in-person, submitted that very fact that the application which was filed by the [2] petitioner before the learned Magistrate on 1-1-2002 was not duly acknowledged by the respondent itself discloses that the respondent/complainant was not present in the Court on 1-1-2002. Apart from the fact that it is not possible for this Court to decide the disputed question of fact regarding the presence or absence of the complainant in the trial Court while considering this writ petition, no finding can be arrived at merely on the basis of the argument sought to be canvassed by the petitioner that since the application filed by the petitioner on 1-1-2002 does not disclose on the face of it the acknowledgement of the copy of the said application by the complainant on the same day. Merely on the basis of such argument the factum of presence or absence of the complainant in the Court cannot be decided. It is also to be noted that the entry in the roznama dated 1-1-2002 also states that the copy of the said application was given to the other side. Besides, apart from vague statement in that regard, the petitioner has not approached the concerned Magistrate to correct the roznama entry, if at all, there was any mistake in recording of the roznama dated 1-1-2002. 3. Besides, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1, the petitioner has already been convicted and whatever grievance he has in relation to the proceedings before the learned [3] Magistrate, certainly he could agitate the same in the appeal, if filed against the order of conviction. Being so, there is no case for entertaining the present petition. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) (P.V.Kakade, J.)