1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1925 of 2008 (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Shamrao Gajre) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for Appellant/State. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 1st December, 2008 By this application, the State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, while hearing an appeal against the conviction of the non-applicant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi, in Criminal Case No.170 of 1990. Police Station Kharangana had filed a chargesheet against the respondent and one Vanita for offences punishable under Sections 419, 469, 494 and 498-A of the Penal Code on the allegation that while being married to one Manda, non-applicant Suresh projected himself to be Siddharth and married Sujata Pandurang Shendre. On a report, police registered an offence, completed investigation and sent the chargesheet. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi, upon considering the evidence tendered before him, acquitted non-applicant Suresh as well as co-accused Vanita of offences 2 punishable under Section 469 and 498-A of the Penal Code. Vanita was also acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 419, 469, 494 and 498-A of the Penal Code. But Suresh was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 494 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year and fine of Rs.3,000/- on or default RI for three months on two counts. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reversed this finding and acquitted non-applicant Suresh. Aggrieved thereby, the State is before this Court. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant/State. This Court would be entitled to interfere in a judgment of acquittal only if it is shown that the acquittal is perverse or the reasons given are improbable. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the essential ceremonies of marriage, which are the foundation for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code were omitted in the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded. He, therefore, disbelieved those witnesses. The view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse or wrong. As far as offence punishable under Section 419 of the Penal Code is concerned, apart from the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, it has to be noted that the complainant did not state that she was influenced by the non-applicant stating his name to be Siddharth rather than his correct name 3 Suresh. In view of this, no case for interference is made out. Leave is refused. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE pdl