1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 95/2009 Sau. Shalu Suresh Tidke ..vs.. Raju Laxman Tidke & another --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. K. Dhande, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. M. Mate, Advocate for non applicant nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 31 st AUGUST, 2009 1. The applicant had filed complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 4, Nagpur being Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 20/1988 against in all five persons. The said complaint was decided by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 4, Nagpur by judgment and order dated 02.02.2006.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the present non applicant under Section 506 part second and sentenced him as set out in the order dated 02.02.2006. Non applicant no.2 was also convicted and benefit of provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 were extended to non applicant no.2. This order came to be challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2006 by the present non applicant no.2. In the Sessions Court learned Ad hoc Additional 2 Sessions Judge-8 Nagpur by judgment and order dated 10.12.2008 acquitted both the non applicants of charge under Section 506 part second r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted that order dated 02.02.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as against the other accused has not been challenged. Judgment and order dated 10.12.2008 passed in favour of the present non applicants is challenged by the applicant, who is original complainant, who had filed the original complaint. 2. I have heard learned Advocates for both sides and perused the impugned judgment. Learned trial Judge accepted the case of present applicant and convicted the present non applicants. However, learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-8, Nagpur negatived the stand of the present applicant and ultimately by reasoned judgment came to the conclusion that the evidence of present applicant was not supported by PW2 and PW3 and he also came to the conclusion that ingredients of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code have not been fulfilled. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the present non applicants are required to be acquitted. He has discussed 3 the utterances which are alleged to have been made by the non applicants and passed a reasoned judgment. 3. I have also considered the entire record. I am of the view that this is not the case where Court should interfere in its revisional jurisdiction and the revision is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Hence, I pass the following order. The revision is dismissed at the admission stage. JUDGE kahale