Cr.Appeal/108/1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.108 OF 1994 State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Versus Rama @ Rameshwar Ramdas s/o Tulshiram Janjal, Age 36 years, Occ. Agril., R/o Savarkheda, Tq. Soegaon, District Aurangabad. ..Respondent ... Smt. S.D.Shelke, APP for the appellant Shri P.F.Patni, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Dated : September 13, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.R.JOSHI, J.) :- 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this appeal, preferred by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.11.1993, passed in RCC No.29 of 1993 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sillod. 2. By the said judgment and oder, present respondent/sole accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the said order of acquittal was Cr.Appeal/108/1994 2 passed without examining a single prosecution witness and this is a peculiar circumstance in which the concerned Magistrate thought it fit to close the case of prosecution and to pass an order of acquittal. 3. We have gone through the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate in the impugned judgment and order, recording the factual position that though notice was issued against the concerned Police Sub-Inspector as to explain, why the prosecution witnesses were not produced, he neither submitted any explanation nor any report of service of summons on the witnesses. Thus, the learned trial Judge observed that the prosecution was not interested in prosecuting the case and closed the evidence and passed the order of acquittal. 4. It is significant to note that this happened way back in the year 1993 and now almost eighteen years have lapsed. In these circumstances, it is not worth re-agitating the matter for giving directions to re-open the case of prosecution and allow the prosecution to bring the witnesses. In Cr.Appeal/108/1994 3 other words, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to re-agitate the issue and put the matter to trial, more so, in absence of any material brought by the prosecution, so as to availability or otherwise of the witnesses, even during the relevant time of the year 1993. 4. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present appeal and same is accordingly, dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI, J.) ... akl