IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 502/2008 [State of Maharashtra vs. Babarao Ramkrushna Banait] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 22 nd FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard Shri Kothari, A.P.P. for appellant/ applicant. The applicant State is seeking leave to file the appeal against the judgment of acquittal of 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Special Atrocity Case No. 16/2006 by which respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Prevention of Atrocities (Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent on the ground that though incident had taken place on 18.06.2006, the report was lodged on 21.06.2006 and the delay is not explained properly. It is the case of the prosecution, according to the learned A.P.P., that the complainant was asked to bring the Caste Certificate and therefore, when he brought the cast certificate, the F.I. R. was registered. However, there is nothing on record to show that he was required to produce the caste certificate at the relevant time for which the offence could not be registered. In fact, as observed by the learned trial Judge, the offence was cognizable and it was the duty of the P.S.O. to register the offence accordingly when the complaint was lodged. At the most, during the investigation he could have collected the caste certificate. Apart from this, the learned trial Judge has relied on some omissions to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more so on the ground that they being from the same locality. Apart from this, the learned trial Judge has found that there was no intention on the part of the accused to abuse the complainant on the ground of caste, nor specific abuses are duly proved. With the help of learned A.P.P. I have gone through the part of the evidence relied on by the applicant/appellant. It is difficult to say that the judgment impugned suffers from the vice of perversity. In these circumstances, it is not possible to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the leave is refused, so also the appeal is rejected. JUDGE Rvjalit