((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2451 OF 2007 Khanderao Malharrao Pimpalgaonkar Applicant versus Pratap Baburao Kate and others Respondents Mr.M.G.Barve for the applicant. A.T.Javeri, APP for the State. S.D.Dharmadhikari for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 02nd April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant in support of this application under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Code" for short). The applicant filed a private complaint against the respondents alleging commission of offence under sections 500, 501 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the said complaint process was issued by the learned Magistrate under section 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the ((-2-)) applicant has challenged the order of acquittal by pointing out that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgement is totally contrary to the record, inasmuch as necessary averments are very much incorporated in the complaint filed by the applicant. He submitted that the observation made by the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 13 is totally incorrect inasmuch as the original press note issued by the accused nos.1 to 3 was produced along with the complaint and the same was duly proved in the evidence of the applicant. He submitted that in fact, the said press note ought to have been exhibited as it was duly proved by the applicant and that the same has not been challenged by the accused persons. He submitted that on the basis of the said press note that the publication of defamatory material was made in the newspapers. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is perverse. 3. I have perused the impugned judgement and record and proceedings of the case. A perusal of the alleged press note released by the accused nos.1 to 3 shows that the first page ((-3-)) bears the rubber stamp of the Chairman of New English School, Hupari and there is a signature above the rubber stamp. The first page shows that the same was addressed to Daily Mahasatta. The second page also bears the rubber stamp of Chairman and a signature above the rubber stamp. The third page is not the original one. It is a xerox copy which bears three rubber stamps at the bottom. The rubber stamps are of the Head Mistress, Head Master and Chairman respectively and there are signatures above the rubber stamps. The fourth page is also a xerox copy. The applicant/complainant has stated that page nos.1 and 2 thereof bear signatures of the Chairman and his rubber stamp. He has not stated in the evidence that he identifies the signatures of the Chairman. He has not named the Chairman. Moreover, he has not identified the signatures on the third page of the said document which is a xerox page. Witness no.2 Dilip Rajaram Kulkarni examined by the applicant was a press reporter of newspaper Daily Dakshin Maharashtra Kesari. He was shown the said press note marked as Article-1. He stated that it bears the signature of the Chairman but he was unable to identify the signature. PW-3 is one Rajendra Makote. He ((-4-)) was again shown Article-1. He has merely stated that it bears the signature of the accused. He has not identified any particular signature. It must be noted here that the accused nos.1 is the Chairman, the accused no.2 is the Head Master and accused no.3 is the Head Mistress. The accused nos.4 to 9 are other accused who are not connected with the school. The statement of the said witness is that the press note marked Article-1 bears the signature of the accused. Thus, even the said witness has not identified the signatures of accused nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the learned Judge has marked the said document as Article-1 and the said document has not been admitted in the evidence. The foundation of the private complaint filed by the applicant is the press note allegedly released by respondents/accused 1 to 3. The same has not been proved in accordance with law and this is the finding in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The learned Judge has observed that no attempt was made by the applicant to get the original produced before the Court. 4. The view taken by the learned Trial Judge that the alleged press note is not proved to be ((-5-)) under the signatures of accused nos.1 to 3 is certainly a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of evidence on record. Therefore, it is difficult to find fault with the order of acquittal. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application is rejected. 5. A prayer is made by the learned counsel for the applicant for seeking leave to appeal against this order to the Apex Court. The prayer is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)