1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1050 OF 2009 Shivnath R.Sharma ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.H.R. Sharma for Applicant Mr. S.R. Shinde-APP for Respondent No.1-State. ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 8TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent No.1 2. The Applicant seeks leave to file an appeal , being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, who was pleased to acquit the Respondent No.2-accused for the offence punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution examined the Complainant as PW-1 and doctor as PW -2. No other witnesses were examined 1 by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate after having gone through the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Respondent No.2-original Accused and, therefore, acquitted the Respondent No.2 herein. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant has invited my attention to the evidence given by the Original Complainant and the doctor. He submitted that the Learned Magistrate had committed an error in observing that the prosecution had failed to establish that the Accused had actually assaulted the Complainant as alleged by the Complainant. He further submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have taken into consideration the discrepancy in the last name of the father of the Complainant and there was typographical mistake and the name of his father was mentioned in the said certificate in place of Ram Ajor. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated that the Respondent No. 2 was present at the site of the incident. Further, it is submitted that this admission of the accused was not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that there is discrepancy in the name of the Complainant and on that ground no case is 1 made out for acquittal. 4. It is a well settled position in law that this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot substitute its own view for the view taken by the learned Magistrate. Since the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a plausible view, this Court cannot interfere with finding recorded by the Trial Court. 5. After having perused the whole order, in my view, the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence on record and has held that the prosecution has not proved its case. There is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. Application for leave to file appeal is, therefore, rejected. (V.M. KANADE J.)