1 cri-appln.5822-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5822 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. .Applicant Vs. Shekhar Ramrao Barge & Ors.. ..Respondents Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. We have heard Mr. Dedhia, the learned A.P.P. This is an application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.711 of 2009. As per the prosecution case the complainant Amit Nagpal and his father Chandrakant Nagpal have an agency office of sim cards, handsets, recharge vouchers of Vodafone Essar Ltd., for Khar West Division and the agency office was known as “Riddhi 2 cri-appln.5822-10 Siddhi Enterprises” located at 101, Ananddham, Road No.10, Khar (West). On 15th January, 2009 around 9.00 p.m. they were about to close their business transaction for the day and were likely to close the office. At about 9.20 p.m., the office bell rang and two persons entered the office. They threatened with revolver and looted the cash of about Rs.2,00,000/- and fled. Amit Nagpal along with the watchman of the building went to the Khar Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that along with the cash one handset of Nokia company with Vodafone sim card, one handset of Nokia with BPL sim card and the third handset of Nokia with Vodafore sim card as well as one handset battery of Nokia company were also taken away. The total property stolen was worth Rs.2,19,510/-. P.S.I. Pawar visited the spot and prepared the spot panchnama at Exhibit 17 on 16th January, 2009 at about 1.15 a.m. and Mr. Vast, P.W.9 took over the investigation. In the course of investigation the accused were arrested. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and P.W.1-Amit Nagpal and P.W.2-Chandrakant Nagpal as well as P.W.7-Bablu Singh Thakur, who was the watchman at Ananddham building were claimed to be the eye witnesses. Recovery could not be proved and even in the identification of the accused in the T.I. parade as well as before the Court there were contradictions. The trial Court has considered the evidence of all the 3 cri-appln.5822-10 witnesses as well as the arguments advanced before it by both the parties and held that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 342, 397 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. We are satisfied that the reasoning set out by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, there is no case made out to grant leave to appeal. 3. Hence this application fails and leave to appeal is refused. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)