[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1506 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Pandit Dnyanadeo Tadavalekar..Respondent ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State None appears for Respondent though served ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge Kolhapur in Sessions Case No 60 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the complainant is that there is dispute between the complainant and the accused in respect of land Gat No. 36. Hence, there used to [-2-] be frequent quarrels. It is the case of the complainant that on 3.1.2006, the accused threatened the complainant and abused him with reference to his caste. Hence, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. Though the incident in question has occurred on 3.1.2006, the complaint was filed only on 18.1.2006 at about 3.45 p.m. No reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant to explain the delay. This inordinate delay itself causes grave doubt in the mind regarding the case of the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all these facts and thereafter has acquitted the Respondent-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view and hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [-3-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]