cran2303.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2303 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Dr. Bhaskar Sitaram Joshi and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. D.Y. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the applicant-State Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 1st FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the impugned judgment and also the record made available. Two main reasons are recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. while acquitting the respondents. First reason is that the act done by them was in the official capacity and it is even not the case of the prosecution that their act was beyond official capacity. However, no sanction was obtained from the competent authority to prosecute them. Secondly, on proper appreciation of evidence, the court examined the members of the committee and court found that no case is made out against the respondents so as to convict them. Learned J.M.F.C. in para 21 has cran2303.10 -2- reached to the conclusion that opinion given by the committee members is without exact reason. The opinion is not supported by the reasons, which are important in assessing the merit of the opinion. In absence of the reasons for conclusion it would not be just to place reliance on the opinion. The court has also observed that necessary documents are also not placed on record. All in all, the court found that the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to convict the respondents. 2 On independent scrutiny, I find that the view taken by the learned J.M.F.C. Parbhani is possible view on the strength of evidence placed on record. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to persuade that view taken by the trial court is not possible view. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the trial court thereby acquitting the respondents. Hence, this application should fail and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, leave to prefer appeal is refused. Registry is directed not to register the appeal. Original record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned Court. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ cran2303.10 -3-