1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3974 OF 2008. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.770 OF 2008. SHRDAR RAJINDERSINGH JAIDEVSINGH OBEROI VS SMT. RANI W/O BHUPINDERSINGH OBEROI ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. R. Soni, Advocate for applicant. Coram : A.H. JOSHI, J. Date : 25th March, 2010. 1. Appeal is taken up for admission hearing. 2. Heard. Perused the record annexed to appeal. 3. The judgment of acquittal is based on the findings recorded in the judgment which rads as follows :- “11........................... The witness number 3 for the complainant, Chandulal Wadi has directly admitted in his cross examination that since he has not brought delivery slip, he can not say whether or not the said Notice was received. In such a situation, I feel that the complainant has not undoubtedly proved that the Notice was received by the accused and when it was received...............” [Quoted from page 26 of criminal application paper book] 2 3. When the employee of the Post Department was summoned, he was called to prove the fact that the accused had received the notice. It was totally unnecessary to have examined the said witness when he did not bring the acknowledgment. Moreover, the applicant has not taken steps to secure production of the acknowledgment receipt of the notice by summoning said document in spite of the testimony of CW3. 4. In this background, the judgment impugned is based on evidence as available on record. 5. The Judgment is not shown to be contrary to evidence on record or perverse. 5. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Judge |mule|