1 Cri. A. No. 3380.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3380 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant V E R S U S Vishwambhar S/o Somnath Rewadkar ... Respondent ... Mr.D.R.Korde,A.P.P. for the applicant-State Mr.V.N.Damle,Advocate for the respondent ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3389 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant V E R S U S Nagnath Sidramappa @ Sangramppa Lohare ... Respondent ... Mr.D.R.Korde,A.P.P. for the applicant-State Mr.V.V.Bhavthankar and Mr. V.G.Sakolkar,Advocates for respondent ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard. 2] By these applications, the applicants are seeking leave to file the appeals against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc 2 Cri. A. No. 3380.09 Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur, in Criminal Appeal nos. 04 of 2004 and 07 of 2007 vide his judgment and order, dated 08th May, 2009. 3] It is case of the prosecution that, the respondent in Criminal Application 3389 of 2009 and one Pandhari presented two cheques to Bank and sought withdrawal of the amount on the spot. But the Bank Officer recognised them as not payees of the cheques. He immediately alerted the Police. By the time the Police came, Nagnath (respondent in Criminal Application no.3389 of 2009) left the bank. The Police came on the spot and apprehended Pandhari and two others, including the respondent in Criminal Appeal no. 3380 of 2009. It is the prosecution case that, the respondent in Criminal Application no.3380 of 2009 was party to the attempt to cheat, because he mislead one Kulkarni, a prosecution witness to certify and identify that two imposters were payees of the cheques. 4] Both the respondents were convicted by the learned Magistrate of the trial Court, but in the Appeal, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution could not prove the case as against Nagnath (respondent in Criminal Application no. 3389 of 2009), because he was not subjected to identification parade after his arrest. Besides, his arrest nothing incriminating was seized from him, though it was the prosecution case that, he carried away with 3 Cri. A. No. 3380.09 him the token of the bank, which he had received on presentation of the cheques. 5] The case against the respondent in Criminal Application no. 3380 of 2009 was found insufficient, because documentary evidence on which prosecution placed reliance, was found to be untrustworthy. 6] Having regard to the facts of the case and reasons mentioned in the Appeal Court’s Judgment, I find no reason to interfere in the findings. So leave for filing the Appeals against the respondents in Criminal Application no. 3389 of 2009 and Criminal Application no. 3380 of 2009, is refused. Thus, both these Criminal Applications stand dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/