IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.649 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Maruti Dadu Mohite .. Respondent Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the State-Applicant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 03rd April 2009. : 03rd April 2009. : 03rd April 2009. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . Heard the learned A.P.P in support of this appeal against acquittal. By this appeal the appellant has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 27th February 1997 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai by which the respondent accused has been acquitted for the offences under section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14th June 1992 at about 2.10 a.m, the respondent (1st accused) and 2nd to 4th accused by playing mischief caused damage to a police jeep bearing No.MVL2775 in front of Vrindavan building, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Road (2) near Sion hospital, Sion, Mumbai. The accused No.4 was at the relevant time a police constable who was entrusted with the duty of driving the said police jeep. The allegation of the prosecution is that the respondent alongwith the 2nd to 4th accused made a conspiracy and were driving the police jeep rashly and negligently in a public place. As a result of rash and negligent driving, the said jeep gave a dash to an electric pole. As a result of the accident, the persons sitting alongwith the 4th accused were injured. Another allegation made against them is that they have committed offence of forgery by changing the number plate of the said jeep. 3. It must be stated that the 2nd to 4th accused were discharged by the learned Magistrate and a charge was framed only against the respondent (1st accused) for the offences punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution examined only one witness Keshav Sakharam Shegale who was Station Duty Officer attached to Matunga Police Station. The learned Magistrate recorded a finding that the only witness examined by the prosecution had not seen the accident. Moreover, panch (3) witneses to the panchnama of the spot of the accident were not examined. 5. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P I have perused the material on record, the deposition of the only witness examined by the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order. The main point which is canvassed is that the learned Magistrate did not give an opportunity to the appellant State to examine further prosecution witnesses and order was hurriedly passed by the learned Magistrate without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce further evidence. 6. Perusal of the examination-in-chief of the only witness examined by the prosecution shows that he had not seen the incident. Only after receiving information on telephone from unknown person, he visited the spot of the accident. He stated that the police jeep had given a dash to the electric pole and the jeep was in a damaged condition. He stated that the number plates displayed on front and rear side of the jeep showed different number. He noticed that white adhesive tape was affixed on both the number plates. He stated that the respondent (1st accused) stated that he was driving the said police jeep and the accused Nos.2 and 3 were (4) sitting besides him. Though the 4th accused was entrusted with the duty of driving the jeep, he was not present. In the examination-in-chief itself he stated that the injured person stated that the accident occurred while they were chasing one vehicle which was carrying illicit liquor. In the cross-examination the witness admitted that he did not record statement of any one. He admitted that except the fact that the jeep was found to be damaged, he had no personal knowledge about the incident. As stated earlier, apart from this witness no other witness was examined and therefore it is obvious that no case was proved against the 1st respondent. 7. The perusal of the roznama of the proceeding shows that on number of dates the prosecution witnesses did not appear and therefore the case was required to be adjourned from time to time. Thereafter the case was adjourned as the respondent did not appear. On 15th October 1996 deposition of the only witness examined by the prosecution was recorded and the case was adjourned to 01st November 1996 as other prosecution witnesses were not present. On 01st November 1996, an adjournment was granted as a last chance. On 21st November 1996 the prayer for adjournment was rejected and the case was (5) closed for judgment. Thereafter the case was adjourned on 23rd December 1996, 24th January 1997 and 30th January 1997. No attempt was made by the appellant to lead evidence even on the said adjourned dates. 8. Hence, it cannot be said that no opportunity was granted to the appellant to lead further evidence. 9. The view taken by the learned trial Judge that the guilt of the respondent is not established is correct and there is no error. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (A.S.Oka,J)