1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2396 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Vs. Balaso Pandurang Mhamulkar & Ors. ...Respondents ------ Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for State ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 7TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application filed by the State for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the I-Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur. 3. By the said judgment and order dated 30.12.2008, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the Respondents- Accused. The Complainant in the complaint alleges that the Accused had demanded Rs.5,000/- from the 2 complainant since they canvased on behalf of the Complainant in the Zilla Parishad election and after the election was over, because the Complainant did not pay the said amount, the accused threatened him and damaged his vehicle and also assaulted him and abused him in the name of his caste and, therefore, offence was registered vide C.R. No. 30 of 2007 under section 394, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1) (x) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and section 7(1) (d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. The Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons after examining the prosecution witnesses on record and the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case against the accused. 4. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution and which are annexed to the application. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. 3 5. PW-1 and 2 are the panch witnesses. Both these witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and, as such, the panchnama regarding the seizure of the vehicle which was allegedly damaged at the instance of the accused and recovery of the torn banian of the Complainant and also buttons of safari shirt, therefore, have not been proved by the independent witnesses. Similarly, PW-3 also is the panch witness in respect of the same panchnama. He also did not support the prosecution case and declared as a hostile witness. PW-5 is the journalist, who was also examined as a pancha witness in respect of the spot panchnama . He, however, in the cross examination admitted that he was working for the Dalit Maha Sangh for some time and he had good relations with the Complainant and he had signed the panchnama in the presence of another panch. The complainant was examined as PW-7 and his driver was examined as PW-6. The prosecution also examined the Medical Officer as PW-4. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case against the accused. 4 6. It is well settled position in law that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 378 of the Cr.P.C. is not expected to substitute its own view for the view taken by the Trial Court. The impugned judgment does not disclose any infirmity and, as such, in my view, this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. Leave, therefore, is refused. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)