..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.859 OF 2007 Dinkar Ananda Sawant. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Rajaram Govind Sawant and 5 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Gaurav Parkar, Adv. i/b. Mr.K.S.Patil, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant i.e. original complainant has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th December, 2006 passed by the learned JMFC, Tasgaon in SCC No.839/2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned JMFC acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 5-orig.accused Nos.1 to 5 of the offence under Sections 434, 447, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. ..(2).. 3. I have perused the judgment and order dated 16th December, 2006. After going through the same, it is seen that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 4. The prosecution case is solely dependent on the evidence of the complainant as the other eye witneeses have not supported the prosecution case. The case of the complainant is that he is in possession of the land in question and the respondents entered into the land and they had cut the sugar-cane and taken away the same and they had also abused, threatened and caused hurt to him. As far as causing of hurt is concerned, there is no medical evidence on record to show that the complainant sustained any injury. As far as the complainant being in exclusive possession of the land in question is concerned, it is seen that there is a civil suit pending between the parties in which the Court had directed that the status quo be maintained. The complainant has not brought forward any material on record to show ..(3).. that he was in exclusive possession of the said piece of land i.e. Gat No.700. In my opinion, the view take by the learned JMFC is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)