1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.283/2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.58/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.284/2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.59/2009 Dr. Dayasagar s/o Baburao Javkar Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and another. Respondents Shri V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for applicant in both applications. Mrs. Y.M.Kshirsagar APP for respondent No.1. Smt. S.S.Jadhav advocate for R-2 in Cri Appln No.283/2009. Shri J.S.Gavhane Advocate for the respondent No.2 in Cri Appln No. 284/2009 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 8 th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These are the two applications preferred by the applicant (original complainant) seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 8.12.2008, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, 2 Beed in Criminal Appeal Nos.28/2006 and 29/2006, thereby allowing the said appeals and acquitting the respondents/original accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 500 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Apparently, it appears that the applicant herein who is the original complainant filed S.C.C.No.1510/1993 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed against the respondents for the offence punishable under sections 341,500,506 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code which was resulted into conviction by way of judgment and order dated 18.11.2006, rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed and respondents/original accused nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under sections 341, 500,506 Indian Penal Code as stated in the said judgment and order dated 18.11.2006. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the said judgment and order of conviction dated 18.11.2006, the respondents/original accused nos. 1 and 2 preferred two separate appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.28/2006 and 29/2006 before learned Sessions Judge, Beed and said appeals were allowed by the judgment and order dated 8.12.2008 and the respondent- original accused nos.1 and 2 were acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 341, 500 and 506 of Indian Penal Code as aforestated. 3 4. In substance, there are contrary findings of two courts i.e. finding of conviction by the learned Trial Court and judgment of acquittal by the First Appellate Court. The applicant has preferred present application seeking leave to file appeal against the said judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed under section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, it is also canvassed that there is chequered history to the present matter. It is also submitted that matter was carried to the Hon. Supreme Court also, which is offshoot of the proceeding between the parties. 5. Having comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the opinion that matter requires consideration and therefore, present application seeking leave to file appeal is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ... aaa/283.09