1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 969 OF 2009 In CRIMINAL APPEAL St. No. 206 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. Versus Srirang Kallapa Chavan & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Applicant State. Shri. P.S. Chavan Advocate for the Respondents. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 25th September 2009 PER COURT : (PER : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,j.) 1) Heard. 2) The applicant sought leave to file appeal, against the respondents. By judgment and order dated 02-12-2000 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, the respondents/ 2 Accused are acquitted for the offence under Sections 147,148,341,353,309,427,447,436,504,506 read with 149 as well as under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Felling of Tress (Regulation Act), 1964, and under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, and under Section 37(1) (3) punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 3) We have perused the impugned judgment as well as perused the record and proceedings, and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. We have also perused the statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. We have also considered the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties. 4) After considering the rival submissions, it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish identity of the accused persons in the alleged act which apparently sustains fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, 3 although the panchanama of place of incident have been prepared, the panchanma has not been proved and the said inaction also hampers the case of the prosecution. 5) Having given comprehensive consideration to the matter and considering the impugned judgment and observations made therein and conclusion drawn therein, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the appellate jurisdiction. Hence, leave to file appeal is refused. Criminal Application stands rejected. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) sdm/969.09