[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.4167 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 200 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Amit Kashinath Ravnank ..Respondent/ Accused ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the Respondent-accused. 2. By judgment and order dated 31.8.2007 passed in Summary Case No. 873 of 2005, the learned IIIrd Jt.Judicial Magistrate, First Class has acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Section 279, 338 and 427 of IPC and under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced [-2-] by him as well as the impugned judgment and order. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent-accused drove his motor-cycle rashly and negligently and gave dash to the Maruti car of the complainant due to which the complainant lost control over the Maruti car and his car gave dash to the iron pole. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that none of the witnesses has stated that the motor-cycle was driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner or in such a manner so as to cause injury or danger to the life of others. On the contrary, the Maruti car of the complainant had given dash to the iron pole due to which the iron pole was uprooted from the ground and it was bent. According to the complainant the iron pole was at a distance of 52 feet from the spot where the accused person dashed his Maruti car. The fact that after the alleged dash by the accused, the Car dashed into an iron pole which was 52 feet away and the iron pole came to be uprooted and bent, shows that Maruti car was in a very high speed. It is pertinent to note that no witness has stated that the complainant was driving the car in slow speed. Looking to the above facts and the other evidence [-3-] on record, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent-accused. On perusal of the evidence, I find that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 5. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]