1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 180/2006 Sau. Kumudini w/o Sudam Ingale vs. State of Maharashtra and another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 28.04.2008 Heard Mr. Gupte, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Wandile, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri Mirza, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. By this Revision Application the applicant who is the original informant takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Fourth Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special Atrocities Case No. 4/05 by which the learned trial court has acquitted respondent no.2 primarily on the ground that the caste of accused was not proved. Mr. Gupta, submitted that the trial court ought to have taken note of the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Amravati which was produced at the stage of arguments which discloses the caste of the accused. The trial court has not placed reliance upon the said document since it was produced at the time of arguments and also on the ground that it was not proved. I find no legal infirmity in the approach of the learned trial Judge. In the absence of the proof of the caste of the accused the trial court could not have convicted accused no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) 2` of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In view of this, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The revision is dismissed. Judge patle