1 appln3190-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3190 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Bapu Appaji Bele .. Respondent Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the Applicant -State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21st January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 19.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji in Criminal Case No. 24 of 2008. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 323, 452, 457 and 506 of the Indian penal Code and was facing trial before the learned Fourth Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji in RCC No. 48 of 2007. The Trial Court held the respondent guilty only under section 457 and acquitted him from rest of the charges by an order dated 5.4.2008. Consequently, the accused- respondent challenged the order of conviction under section 457 I.P.C, in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2008 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji and succeeded in the said appeal, which is 2 appln3190-10 impugned before this Court. 4. Examined both the orders. Lurking house trespass by night is a serous offence. Admittedly it is not a case of the prosecution that the accused wanted to commit theft or any serious offence and there is no evidence to indicate that it was lurking house trespass as defined under section 457 of I.P.C. Prior to the said incident, there was some altercation and fight between the parties and the allegations are found that the accused entered into the house of the Laxman Shama Shirole and abused his family members and also threatened them. It is not a very serious incident though no doubt, an unbecoming act complained of. However, the material on record is certainly falling short to prosecute for the offence complained of. 5. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court in favour of the respondent accused are duly supported by sound reasons. No perversity is found in the said findings. No case is made out. No interference is, therefore, called for. Leave is refused. 6. The application is rejected. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )