1 appln 5508­10 jpc/­ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5508 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Purshottam Krushnayya Paraswar .. Respondents and another Mr. S. A. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent­state CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 19th January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard Mr.Shaikh, APP for the respondent State. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 23/1/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur, in STC No. 718 of 2001. Both the accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 447 read with Section 511 of the Indian penal Code. 3. The prosecution's case is that Shri Prakash Krushnna lodged a complaint to Sadar Bazar Police Station on 6.2.2001. He alleged thereby that, he is residing at 134 South Sadar Bazar, Solapur at 212 south Solapur. A house property known as Laxmi Narayan Apartment belongs to him. Said building is constructed by 2 appln 5508­10 Paraswar Bandewar Associate. His brother Purshottam Paraswar was no way concern with it. He alleged further that prior to eight years, block No.9 of said Laxmi Narayan Apartment was agreed to sell Shri Gokuldas Narayandas of Mumbai. The agreement was executed on stamp paper. But as the said person namely Gokuldas died before completing the transaction, the property still remains in possession of complainant in capacity of power of attorney. He alleged further that, as on 6.2.2001 at about 4.30 p.m. one women namely Gangubai who is working in the premises of Laxmi Narayan apartment reported complaint by going to his shop that his brother namely Purshottam Paraswar have cut the lock of block no.9 with two other persons, so immediately complainant went to the spot, there he asked the person cutting lock with the blade, then he said that Purshottam told him to cut the lock and they both went away by leaving behind the blade there. As such Purshottam and two unknown persons attempted to cut the lock of his house. Hence the complainant lodged the complaint. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned trial Court heard the accused and the complainant and their counsel and discussed all relevant evidence and recorded findings against the complainant holding that he was not in possession of the premises at the relevant time. Full opportunity was given to the complainant to establish his case. His 3 appln 5508­10 evidence was discarded being witness not trustworthy. He is solitary witness in this case and another evidence of the Investigating Officer which is not a direct evidence on the point. It is also stated that there is a Civil Suit pending between the parties and their relations are strained. It has also been observed that possibility of filing a false complaint cannot be ruled out on the basis of enmity. 5. Upon consideration of the entire record and the findings recorded by the trial Court which are duly supported by sound reasons, no perversity is found in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. No case is made out. No interference is therefore, called for. Leave is refused. 6. The application is rejected. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )