1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.296/1999. Sayyed Rasul s/o Sayyed Chotu Age: 45 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Kalegaon, Tq.Ahmedpur, District Latur. .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1) Multani Mohiuddin Sayyed Age: 23 Yrs., occu. Kalegaon Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. 2) The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.KB Jadhav, Adv.h/for Mr.SB Gorde-Patil,Adv. for Petitioner; Mr.Anand Patil, Adv.h/for Mr.VD Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for Respondent No.2/State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22 nd July, 2009 . ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) Aggrieved complainant by acquittal of Respondent no.1 – Multani Mohiuddin Sayyed in Criminal Appeal No.44/1996, arising out of 2 conviction in RCC No.8/1992 recorded by JMFC, Ahmedpur, is in the Revision. 3) It is a matter of record, in RCC No. 9/1992, accused no.2 – Mohidin is acquitted, there is no challenge at the instance of the complainant to said acquittal. In the present revision, said Mohidin is not a party. It follows that this Court is not called upon to address to the extent of acquittal of accused no. 2 – Mohidin by order dated 3rd of September, 1996. 4) Now, turning to the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 1996, in the appeal of Multani, respondent herein, and acquitting said Multani for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 of IPC, the assessment carried by the Appellate Court, as recorded in the reasons in paragraphs 9, 10, 14 and 18, indicate that the evidence was not satisfactory to reach to the guilt of the accused – Multani. The evidence of Court Commissioner, Advocate Reddy, was scanned by the learned first Appellate Court, he found that the Court Commissioner, Advocate Reddy, had 3 virtually no occasion to witness the actual assault by Multani to the complainant. That apart, the stick, allegedly used during the course of the incident, was recovered from acquitted accused no.2, though under suspicious circumstances, as the panch did not support. In the situation, Revision does not call for any interference, no illegality or infirmity is projected, it is rejected. sd/- ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv296.99 Authenticate copy (BD VADNERE,PS)