drp {1} Cri. Application No.1582/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1582 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.404 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Yashwant Kishanrao Pathewar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for applicant State Mr. V.S.Bodakh, h/f Mrs.C.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for R-1 and 2 Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 22nd December 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant State seeks condonation of delay of 37 days in filing criminal appeal against the order of acquittal. We have heard learned APP for the applicant State and learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr.Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4. We, however, condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly allowed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln1582-10 drp {2} Cri. Application No.1582/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.404 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra APPELLANT VERSUS Yashwant Kishanrao Pathewar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for Appellant State Mr. V.S.Bodakh, h/f Mrs.C.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for R-1 and 2 Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 22nd December 2010 PER COURT: 1. Since we have condoned the delay in filing this appeal, this appeal is heard for admission, at the request of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Charge against the present respondents was framed for an offence punishable u/s 302, 304 Part II, 420 and 269 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that the respondents herein used substandard bleaching powder, which had resulted in death of about 4 persons from gastroenteritis. The prosecution drp {3} Cri. Application No.1582/2006 heavily relied upon the evidence of the analyzer, particularly analysis reports from Exhibit-67 to 76, in respect of examination of the bleaching powder. The trial court recorded a finding at para 13 of the judgment that sample of the bleaching powder, which was examined by the chemical analyzer, was not the same bleaching powder, which had been used during the period when the people were inflicted with the infection of the gastroenteritis i.e. from 15.03.1993 to 01.04.1993. The trial court, therefore, came to the conclusion that mere finding of substandard bleaching powder subsequently would not mean substandard bleaching powder was used for purification of the water earlier. The trial court, then examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to even remotely connect the accused with the commission of the offence. We have carefully examined the findings recorded by the trial court and we have also perused the record and proceedings, which was called for by us. Upon careful perusal of the record and proceedings and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we concur with the view expressed by the trial court. 3. In that light of the matter, we do not find any merit, whatsoever, in the present appeal and the present appeal is, therefore, dismissed confirming the acquittal of the respondents. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln1582-10