((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1393 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Ganpat Murari Nesavankar & ors. Respondents J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th March 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned APP for the applicant. The respondents-accused were convicted by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 427 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. An appeal was carried by the accused to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has passed the impugned order of acquittal. 3. I have perused the impugned judgement and order with the assistance of the learned APP.. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ((-2-)) considered and appreciated the oral evidence of all the witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion that the alleged eye witness cannot be relied upon as a trustworthy witness. Further, the learned Judge held that the prosecution has failed to establish that wrongful damage sustained by the complainant on account of any overt act by the accused. Apart from all this, the learned Judge found that the complainant had admitted that she had taken the shopping block on leave and license basis for eleven months which was to be vacated by her in December 2002. Infact, in January 2003 the husband of the complainant filed a civil suit against accused no.1 seeking perpetual injunction. In the civil suit there was a settlement between the parties and they agreed to abide by the orders of the Court. Application for injunction made by the husband of the complainant was rejected and on 8th February 2003 the complainant and her husband vacated the suit premises and shifted to some other premises. The complaint was lodged on 9th December 2003. ((-3-)) 4. Considering all these aspects the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the guilt of the accused is not established is certainly a proper view. Therefore, no case is made out for grant of special leave. Application is rejected accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)