bsb : 1 : IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7555 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO. 7555 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO. 7555 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant v/s. Sonu E. Bhagade ... Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda ¦ Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s ¦ Orders Order or Directions and ¦ Registrar’s Orders ¦ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the applicant. Mr. R.W. Adik, Sr. Advocate with S. D. Kadam for the respondent. CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT. SMT. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, NISHITA MHATRE, NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED: 21ST NOVEMBER, 2006 21ST NOVEMBER, 2006 21ST NOVEMBER, 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This is an application by the State of Maharashtra seeking to impugn the order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 195 of 2004. The learned Judge, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the evidence as laid down by the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the bsb : 2 : accused. The learned Judge has summarized her conclusion in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 where the learned Judge points out one after another reason why the evidence as laid by the prosecution is inadequate to warrant a conviction under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. In such circumstances, in our opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal as it is neither illegal nor perverse. Hence application rejected. .....