1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 563 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant V/s Navin Tolaram Advani. ..Respondent. Mr. A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing application for leave to file appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. Leave to appeal is granted. Accordingly, Appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 3. Applicant seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai in Case No. 522/P/1994 dated 16/4/2009, thereby acquitted the accused for offence punishable under section 506(ii) and 509 of I.P.Code. 4. It is prosecution case that the Complainant lodged report that somebody was harrassing him and his family by making telephone calls since May, 1991. It is further case that the complainant was threatened not to get his son married to one Marietta Vakil. Similarly, the said Mariatta Vakil had also received telephone calls. It is prosecution case that the person who made the telephone calls was the accused. 5. Learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence made before us has acquitted the Accused. Learned Trial Court found that the the prosecution had only examined the complainant. It is found that evidence of the complainant is hearsay evidence as told by Mariatta Vakil. It is further found that there is no record of telephone numbers from where the calls were made. In this background, learned Trial Court has found that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 3 6. Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Trial Court is either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. No perversity or impossibility is noticed so as to warrant interference. Hence dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI,J)