1 5.appa307-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2890 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Deepak Digambar Kakade. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Applicant-State. .... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that initially in all 22 accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302, 326, 324 & 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted that the trial Court has convicted four accused namely Balu Jayram Nalawade, Anil Jayram Nalawade, Jayram Narayan Nalawade and Subhash Bhagwanta Nalawade for the offences charged. The Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted PPD 2 5.appa307-10 that the convicted accused persons preferred appeal against the order of conviction as well as the State has also preferred appeal against the order of acquittal of the remaining accused persons. It is contended that in so far as appeal against acquittal is concerned, accused Deepak Digambar Kakade was not served with the notice issued by this Court in the appeal against acquittal and, therefore, his appeal was permitted to be separated from the other appeals which were filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the accused persons. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor further states that the appeal filed by the accused against conviction was allowed by this Court and the order of conviction was quashed and set aside. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal filed by the State against acquittal of the accused persons except Deepak Digambar Kakade was also dismissed finally by this Court. However, since the appeal of accused Deepak Digambar Kakade was separated, the same remained to be heard finally and, therefore, has been listed today for admission. 4. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the appeal filed against the order of conviction was allowed. Appeal by the State against the order of acquittal was dismissed. In such circumstances, there is no propriety for us to take the view other than 3 5.appa307-10 the view already taken by this Court while dismissing the appeal against acquittal since the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence adduced by the prosecution is one and the same. For these reasons appeal against acquittal as well as application for leave to appeal both are dismissed. Criminal Application No.307 of 2010 is also disposed of. (D.D.SINHA,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)