rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1893 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1893 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1893 OF 2006 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. Deelip @ Dilu Janu Jagdale & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P.for the State. Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil for Respondnt No.1. Mr.Kishor G.Pashte for Respondent No.2. Mr.Santosh Chari for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned A.P.P.in support of the Application for grant of leave. The acquittal of the Respondent/accused is for offence punishable under section 457, 380, 411 section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 20th October, 2003, the office premises of the complainant (P.W.1) were ransacked by some persons. According to the case of P.W.1, he found ( 2 ) that diamonds weighing about 840 caret worth Rs.20,00,000/- were missing. He also found that cash amount of Rs.12,50,000/- and two diamond studded wrist watches worth Rs.4,50,000/- were stolen. As a matter of fact, it was recorded that on 20th April, 2004 ‘A’ Summary report was filed by the police. On 19th August, 2004 first and second accused were arrested on information. Police arrested accused nos. 3 and 4 on 25th August, 2004. The accused nos. 5 and 6 were arrested on 28th August, 2004 and 31st August, 2004 respectively. 3. The case of the prosecution is that during the investigation diamonds weighing 25 carets worth Rs.2,50,000/- were recovered at the instance of accused No.1. At the instance of accused No.3, diamonds weighing 30 carets worth Rs.75,000/- were recovered. According to the case of the prosecution, the fourth accused had sold the gold studded wrist watch with diamond to the 5th accused. The case of the prosecution is that at the instance of 5th accused from his shop melted gold worth Rs.20,000/- and one wrist watch were recovered. On 30th August, 2004 at ( 3 ) the instance of 4th accused, police recovered one Onida Colour T.V. and Music System. On 6th September, 2004, the accused No.6 made a statement that he would point out one Manoj Bandre, a diamond broker to whom he has sold to diamond. The said Manoj Bandre took the police to his residence and at his instance, police seized 45 carets of diamonds worth Rs.75,000/-. On 11th September, 2004 at the instance of 5th accused, the police recovered 1.05 carets of diamonds worth Rs.30,000/-. Admittedly, apart from the aforesaid evidence of recovery, there is no other evidence to connect the accused persons with the offence. 4. I have perused the notes of evidence. I have heard detailed submission made by the learned A.P.P. in support of this application. P.W.1 (Complainant) identified diamonds recovered by the police. He also identified the gold alongwith a watch. In the cross examination, he admitted that there were no specific identification marks on his diamonds. He admitted that in Zaveri Bazar the diamonds are sold on the street. He admitted that there were other merchants ( 4 ) who manufacture the diamonds like the one manufactured by him and that there were no specific identification marks on the gold items shown to him by the police. 5. The learned Trial Judge has referred to the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses who are mainly panch witnesses who have signed the alleged panchanama regarding recovery at the instance of the accused. After considering the evidence of the said witnesses, the learned Judge held that the evidence was too weak to implicate the accused in the offence alleged against them. 6. Considering the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the admissions of the first witness examined by the prosecution, I find that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge that the offence has not been established beyond reasonable doubt is certainly a probable view. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application for grant of leave is rejected. (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.)