{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2007 Namdeo s/o Bapurao Katne APPLICANT VERSUS Laxman s/o Shankarrao Chaudhari & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.N.Gaddime, h/f Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for applicant Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 (Absent) ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this revision, the applicant, original complainant, has challenged the order of acquittal passed in RCC No.60/2004 by JMFC, Kinwat. By the said order, the JMFC, Kinwat has acquitted respondents No.1 to 3 from all the charges u/s 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP, perused the Record and Proceedings and judgment passed by the JMFC. {2} 3. It appears that the offence was registered at CR No. 32/2003 for an offence punishable u/s 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Shindkhed police station on the complaint of present applicant. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.1, who runs a fair price shop, has sold wheat meant for Public Distribution Scheme, to one Hakim Khan for a consideration of Rs. 1000/-. 4. It further appears that after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against respondents No.1 to 3 and charge came to be framed against them. It also appears that total 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. However, out of the 6 witnesses, 4 witnesses, who were Pancha witnesses to the seizure Panchanama, turned hostile and the thus their evidence was of no use. 5. Before considering the evidence of the complainant, it is necessary to take into consideration that during the investigation registers, maintained in the shop of respondent No.1 were seized and examined by the investigating officer. In para 9 of the impugned judgment there is observation that in the testimony of the investigating officer there is no whisper as to whether there was deficiency in the stock of the fair price shop. If the stock from the fair price shop is removed, then there must be difference in the stock in hand and the stock shown in the register. It appears that {3} this exercise is not carried out. In absence of verification of stock in hand with stock shown in the register the testimony of witness No.6 cannot be corroborated, which is rightly observed by the trial court. Other than this, no illegality is brought to the notice of this Court which necessitates interference with the impugned judgment and order. In view of the fact that there is very limited scope in revision only to consider as to whether any patent illegality is committed by the Trial Court or not. As no illegality is noticed in the impugned judgment, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned order. In the result, the revision, which is sans merits, is summarily dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/crirev204-07