( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2000 Ashok Kanayalal Kundanani .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. None for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- 1. None for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 faced Sessions Case No.123 of 1999 for charge under Sections 436, 427, 511 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. The learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune conducted the trial and by his judgement and order dated 6.5.2000 acquitted respondent Nos.2 and 3 of charge under Sections 436, 427, 511 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. 3. The applicant Ashok Kundanani is the complainant who had filed F.I.R. The applicant complainant is aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 6.5.2000 and has therefore filed this revision application. ( 2 ) 4. The prosecution case in gist is as under. 5. The complainant has a shop by name Kanhaiya Cloth Stores at Shagun Chowk, Pimpri, Pune and the shop of respondents 2 and 3 is nearby the shop of the complainant. According to the prosecution, on 17.8.1998, the complainant closed his shop and 18.8.1998 was the weekly holiday and that when he opened the shop on 19.8.1998, the complainant noted that certain black chemical was found lying on the various Saris and the Saris were damaged. The complainant noticed 4 or 5 holes to the wooden partition of the rack. Some chemical substance was injected in the stock belonging to the complainant. The complainant expressed doubt against respondents 2 and 3. The investigation was carried out and the trial was conducted. 6. I have with the assistance of learned A.P.P. Mr.Saste appearing for the State, perused the record and it is noticed that as many as 5 witnesses are examined and complainant is P.W.2, who throw light as to how the shop was closed on the earlier date and as to how on opening the shop on 19.8.1998, he realised that the goods have been damaged. It is required to be mentioned that no eye witness is examined in support of the case of the prosecution. A perusal of ( 3 ) the judgement delivered by the learned Trial Judge indicates that the case rested on the material which can be said as a doubt expressed by the complainant against respondents 2 and 3 based on the earlier enmity. No doubt, the complainant has given some evidence to show that there has been dispute between the complainant on one hand and respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, that by itself cannot be considered as a ground to hold that the respondents 2 and 3 had committed the offence. Even if it is accepted that there was a dispute between the complainant on one hand and respondents 2 and 3 and that the respondents 2 and 3 perpetrated the offence of mis-chief, it was necessary for the prosecution to allege overact against respondents 2 and 3 and produce appropriate evidence in support of those allegations. A mere doubt expressed by the complainant cannot take place of the proof for the allegations against respondents 2 and 3. 7. The learned Trial Judge has conducted the matter in a proper manner and has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. The approach of the learned Trial Judge was right. The learned Trial Judge has considered the evidence and has indicated that there is no sufficient evidence to convict the respondents 2 and 3. ( 4 ) 8. In my view, the applicant has failed to make out a case so as to say that this Court should interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. No fault can be found in the impugned judgement hence the revision is required to be dismissed. Hence the order :- a) Revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)