cran4882.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4882 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Prashant Ramrao Chavan and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the applicant-State. ..... CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH AND A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2011 P. C. :- 1 Heard the learned APP, Mr. Godbharle, for the applicant. We have perused the judgment of acquittal recorded on 17.8.2011, by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2011. 2 The criminal appeal No. 451 of 2011, is filed by the respondent No.1 herein through advocate Mr. Ghanekar, against his conviction. The said appeal was admitted by the learned Single Judge on 20.9.2011. We have also seen the order dated 29.9.2011, passed by the learned Division Bench. This order is common, which makes cran4882.11 -2- reference of criminal appeal No. 458 of 2011, filed by Sanchin Kailas Khandare, criminal appeal No. 451 of 2011 filed by Prashant Ramrao Chavan, with criminal application No. 3880 of 2011 and criminal application No. 4177 of 2011. This court has admitted the appeal filed by the complainant being criminal appeal No. 458 of 2011 and directed that the said appeal to be heard alongwith criminal appeal No.451 of 2011. Acton against the respondents, under Section 390 of Cr.P.C., in the shape of personal bond and solvent surety in a sum of Rs.5000/-, was directed. This position is conceded by the learned counsel present before the court. On this background, we are inclined to grant leave in criminal application No. 4882 of 2011, to file appeal against acquittal. 3 Accordingly, leave is granted in favour of the State to file and maintain criminal appeal against acquittal. Two copies of formal memo of appeal to be supplied in due course. 4 Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel states that earlier this court directed action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C., now therefore, while granting leave under Section 378(3) to the State to file appeal, the same action may not be repeated. The learned APP has no objection to the prayer made by Mr. Ghanekar, if granted. cran4882.11 -3- 5. The appeal filed by the State has been admitted. 4 We make it clear that action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. has already been directed by this court in the appeal filed by the complainant, therefore, we are not directing the same action again in this criminal appeal, even if leave has been granted and appeal is admitted. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J.) (S. B. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/