1 Criminal Appeal No.265 of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.265 OF 1998 Hariprasad Nandlal Sarda, Age 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o Hadgaon, District Nanded ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, (Copy served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at aurangabad) ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the appellant – absent Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th January, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Counsel called absent. 2. The appellant was put on trial before the learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special Case No.55/1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The learned Special Judge, by the order dated 4.8.1998, on analysis of the evidence, has acquitted the appellant of the charge under the penal provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act and also of the Protection of 2 Criminal Appeal No.265 of 1998 Civil Rights Act. However, he has convicted the appellant for charge under Sections 448, 352 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to pay fine of Rs.200/- on each count (totalling Rs.600/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days. It is this order which has been questioned by the appellant. 3. In order to establish the prosecution case, four witnesses were put in, P.W. 1 Kailash Narwade, P.W. 2 Vithal Wakole, P.W. 3 Balwantrao Amrate and P.W. 4 P.S.IO. Srirang Nimmalwad. On analysis, the learned Special Judge did not believe evidence of P.W.2 Vithal Wakole, referring him to be a brought up witness since his name did not figure in the F.I.R. 4. Though it was alleged in the grounds of the appeal that the F.I.R. is result of fabrication and premeditation and same has been demonstrated, by evidence on record, however, it is not so. The controversy that has been tried to be raised in respect of the distance will not be a root cause to treat the F.I.R. to be a result of fabrication. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution though it has been so caused. Even if there were controversies for possession of the property between the petitioner with P.W.3 Amrate, however, it will not culminate into a false prosecution as these events are of 1995 which has ended in compromise. Thereafter, it was the accused/ petitioner entered the press, exert threats and insisted that complainant should withdraw the prosecution, refusal to withdraw, the accused/ petitioner hurled abuses and assaulted the witness. The 3 Criminal Appeal No.265 of 1998 version of P.W. 1 Kailash and P.W. 3 Balwantrao support each other. The entry of the petitioner in the shop of Balwant where the complainant had a right to remain in possession being a press, was unlawful. Petitioner used criminal force by catching hold collar of the complainant and his entry to the press was found to be committing an offence. Even if no visible injury was caused or any bodily injury was caused to the complainant, however, there was no reason for the petitioner to enter in the press and manhandle the complainant. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge of convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 352 and 506 of Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be perverse or calling for interference. The learned Special Judge rightly analysed the evidence and acquitted the accused of the charge under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. No interference, criminal appeal lacks merits, dismissed. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE