1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1343 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Dagadu s/o Maroti Hawale ...Respondent ..... Mr. N.R. Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for the applicant ..... CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 19TH APRIL, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 We heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh, for the applicant. On behalf of the applicant-State, leave is sought under Section 378(1) (3) of the Cr.P.C. Incidentally, it is noticed by us that one of the convicted accused in the case on hand, Mr. Ashok Dagadu Hawale has already filed Criminal Appeal, which has been admitted by this Court and registered as Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2010. Record in the present case is also received by this Court. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. we have seen the judgment of the trial Court. Learned A.P.P. invited our attention to para 29 of the judgment. He has also made 2 available dying declarations which are at Exh. 44 and 47. These two dying declarations have been considered by the trial court. The grievance is made on behalf of the applicant that on the same set of evidence one accused person is convicted i.e. Mr. Ashok Dagadu Hawale, who has filed criminal appeal No. 6 of 2010 in this Court and the present respondent i.e. Mr. Dagadu Maroti Hawale, father in law of deceased Archana, has been acquitted. 2 After hearing learned A.P.P. for the applicant, in our view, case for grant of leave has been established. This criminal application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause 7-B. 3 Learned Sessions Judge, Beed is directed to take action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. against respondent Dagadu Maroti Hawale. We further direct the learned Sessions Judge, Beed to secure the presence of the respondent on quarterly basis. 3 This appeal to be heard alongwith criminal appeal No.6 of 2010. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/