hvn 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 APPLICATION NO. 1805 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1805 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1805 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Jaywant Ukhardya Savara and Ors... Respondents Mrs. S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for State applicant. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 DATED: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 DATED: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of the 3rd Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005. The learned Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 7.12.2007 acquitted the respondents of the charges under Section 395 and 397 of the I.P.C. The incident occurred on 8.1.2004 initially, but the F.I.R. was lodged based on some report in some other proceedings. According to evidence of P.W. No. 7 while carrying out investigation in C.R. No. 43/2004 and 44/04 he arrested respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 4 in this case who made a statement that they along with other respondents had committed dacoity at Wanai, Chandranagar, Taluka Dahanu. . In so far as evidence is concerned, we find firstly that no witness have identified the accused. Secondly no recovery has been made at the instance of the accused. Apart from that the learned Judge found that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W. No. 3 Sagar Kudav, son of the complainant. as also the court chose not to believe in the evidence of P.W. No. 4 and P.W. No. 5 on account of inordinate delay. The court noted that it was the case of these witnesses, that they had been tied up on the night of the incidence. The incident took place on 8.1.2004 whereas statement was recorded on 24.2.2004. No explanation was offered by the prosecution for the same. . In our opinion, considering that there was no evidence on record, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be faulted with. Apart from that we are considering an application for leave to appeal. Once we accept the findings, no case made out for grant of leave. Hence, application for leave rejected. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)