sat 1 appln 1176-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1176 OF 2011 Mangilal Chhogaji Rawal ...Applicant vs. Bhanwarlal Hirachand Jain & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Jagdish T. Nagar for the Applicant. Dr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DECEMBER 5, , 2011 P.C. :- 1 The applicant feels aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The applicant was the complainant in the said case and respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 along with one Dinesh were the accused. 2 It is submitted that process was not issued against accused no.4 Dinesh. Process for the offences punishable u/s. 506 Part II r/w. 34 of IPC was issued against respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Case was heard. Evidence of the complainant as PW 1 was recorded. Respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 were acquitted sat 2 appln 1176-2011 by the impugned judgment. 3 It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that despite there being sufficient evidence, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. 4 I have gone through the evidence of the applicant which is less than one page. The material portion of the evidence is actually of five lines. The oral evidence of the complainant is missing from the complaint. The allegations in the complaint do not get support from the evidence on record. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the applicant was alarmed. Date of incident is not mentioned. It is also not explained as to why the applicant did not rush to LT Marg Police Station which is at five minutes walking distance from the place of alleged incident. Complaint was directly filed before the Magistrate after unreasonable and unexplained delay. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment. 5 Application for grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)