1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRA No. 299/2007 Suresh Ramrao Thakare .. Vs. The State of Mah. & 7 others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 21st February, 2008 Heard Mr. Pathan, learned counsel for the applicant. By this application, the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.6.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Special Case No. 16/2005 acquitting respondent nos. 2 to 8 of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. Pursuant to the report dated 22.4.2005 filed by the applicant F.I. R. was registered for the offences mentioned above. 2 Thereafter charge-sheet was filed against respondent nos. 2 to 8. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted respondent nos. 2 to 8 of the offences charged. Having heard Mr. Pathan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mujumdar, learned A.P.P. for respondent no. 1 and having perused the impugned order of the acquittal, I find that no case has been made out by the applicant for interference with the impugned order of the acquittal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is on extremely limited grounds. The trial Court has given categorical finding that the report under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant and his family members at the instance of respondent no.8 and possibility of filing report by the applicant to create defence cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the trial Court observed that on 21.4.2005 Umesh was in hospital and as 3 such he could not have been present on the spot on 21.4.2005 at 10.30 p. m., when the alleged incident had occurred. The findings given by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, revision is summarily rejected. JUDGE MLA