( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4207 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4207 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4207 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant (Appellant) V/s Shrishail Baswanappa Tuppad .. Respondent Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P.for the Applicant/State. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned A.P.P.for the Applicant in support of prayer for grant of leave to prefer an appeal. The Respondent Accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable u/s.395 of the Indian Penal Code, u/s.3(1)(10) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act 1989, as well as u/s.7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 2. I have perused the deposition of the complainant and other relevant prosecution witnesses. I have perused the impugned order. The Complainant was working as a Recovery Officer of ICICI Bank, Solapur. His job was to recover loan amount granted for purchasing two wheelers. On 14th February, 2005 the complainant accompanied by one of his friend proceeded to the place known as Kadadi Chawl for recovery of loan instalment from one Gopal Pagare. After reaching that place he parked his ( 2 ) Motor-cycle near public toilet. Respondent Accused was standing in front of the public toilet. He called upon the complainant to disclose the purpose of his visit. The complainant disclosed that he was visiting the place for recovery of outstanding loan amount from Mr.Gopal Pagare. The specific allegation made by the complainant in his deposition is that the Respondent Accused stated that the ICICI Bank is unable to recover instalments and has kept mahar employee for recovery. The case of the complainant is that the said words were uttered by the Respondent on noticing/ seeing blue mark on his forehead. The complainant stated that the Respondent accused abused him by referring to his caste and he assaulted him. It is stated that the accused snatched a sum of Rs.200/- from his shirt pocket. 3. The complainant was extensively cross-examined. He admitted that in the complaint he had not specifically stated that the Respondent accused snatched Rs.200/- from his pocket. He admitted that even in the supplementary statement recorded by the police the said aspect has not been disclosed. He admitted that because of the incident he has been removed from the employment and that he has not filed any proceeding for reinstatement. 4. Perusal of the examination-in-chief shows that the complainant has not quoted the exact words allegedly ( 3 ) uttered by the Respondent Accused. He stated that the Respondent Accused commented that the ICICI Bank has employed persons belonging to Scheduled Caste for recovery of loan amount. The learned trial Judge has observed that apart from the complainant, PW-4 was alleged eye-witness to the incident. The learned trial Judge found that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the PW-4. As stated earlier, in the complaint as well as in the supplementary statment, the complainant had not disclosed that the sum of Rs.200/- was snatched by the Respondent Accused. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond the reasonable doubt. In my opinion, the said view is a possible view. No case is made out for interference. Application is rejected. (A.S.OKA, (A.S.OKA, (A.S.OKA, J.) J.) J.)