Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLEAL NO.161/2006 ( State ..vs.. Sadashiv Ganpat Chandanshio) with CRIMINAL REVISION NO.51 OF 2006 (Sangeeta Sitaram Kawade ..vs.. Sadashiv Ganpat Chandanshio) ______________________________________________________________ __________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 12, 2008. Criminal Appeal no.161/2006 is filed by the State Challenging the acquittal of accused Sadashiv Ganpat Chandanshio for offences punishable under sections 353, 466, 469 and 504 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and Criminal Revision Application No.51/2006 is filed by the original complainant Sau. Sangeeta Sitaram Kawade taking exception to the acquittal of all accused in Appeal No.3/2002. 2] I have heard the learned A.P.P. for state and the learned counsel for the respondent Sadashiv Ganpat Chandanshio in Criminal Appeal, as also all other respondents in criminal revision. Learned counsel for the applicant Sangeeta Sitaram Kawade was not available though repeatedly called. 3] Sangeeta was working as Anganwadi Sevika at village Wadap. Sadashiv Chandanshio was at the relevant time Upsarpanch of the village. Sangeeta had filed report with the Police stating that on 19th February 1998 at about 1.00 p.m. accused Sadashio came to Anganwadi and snatched the attendance register and scrapped her signature on the attendance register. He drove Sangeeta out of the Anganwadi and threw the register on her person. On a report an offence was registered and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon convicted the accused of offence punishable under section 504 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each or undergo S.I. for 15 days each. He convicted them for offence punishable under section 466 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for 7 days each. Accused no.2 and 3 Vijay and Madhao were acquitted of offence punishable under section 353, but accused no.1 Sadashio was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- or in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days. 4] Accused challenged their conviction by filing an appeal before the Court of Sessions, Washim. Learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge to whom the appeal was made over held in favour of the accused and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the services of the complainant were in fact terminated after the incident on account of misbehaviour. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence tendered and refused to believe the word of Sangeeta as well as the two other witnesses examined, since they happened to be nephew and niece of Anita. P.W. 2 Ganesh had admitted in cross examination that he had not gone to the school or Anganwadi on that date and that he was at his home. He claimed that when Sadashio passed from the front of his door, he had some premonition that something would happen and therefore he brought complainant at 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. Thus, this evidence about the incident was rightly rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. P.W. 3 Anita complainant's niece claimed to have been standing on the “well”, stated that she saw accused came to Anganwadi and scraped signature on the attendance register. First, she is a chance witness related to the complainant and secondly, learned Sessions Judge cannot be faulted for disbelieving her for claiming to have stood, possibly, on parapet of the well, and watching the incident. Incidentally, since the evidence is also made available for my perusal by the learned P.P. It seems that Sangeeta's services were terminated on account of her arrogant behaviour and that she had filed a writ petition taking exception to her termination against the C.E.O. of Zilla Parishad and Project Officer of the Zilla Parishad. It is thus possible that upon being caught napping by the Upsarpanch of the village, Sangeeta might have lodged report to save her job and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge can not be said to have taken a view of the matter which is untenable or perverse. Hence leave to file appeal refused. Appeal dismissed. Criminal revision is also dismissed. JUDGE smp.