1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (appa) No. 674 OF 2010 Raibhan Hiraman Ramteke v. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.M. Patwardhan Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, A.P.P. for Res.no. 1. ..... CORAM: A.H. JOSHI & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 1st FEBRUARy,_2011. This is an application for condonation of delay with application for leave to appeal and appeal. We had directed its listing for admission and hearing. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Patwardhan for the applicant at length. 3. Perused the judgment. The Sessions Judge has rendered the judgment of acquittal since the testimony of alleged eye witness P.W.1 Raibhan was found to be untrustworthy, apart from 2 other fact finding. 4. It is not the contention of the learned advocate that the judgment is perverse. The learned advocate strenuously argued that in present case, conviction was possible by taking right view. 5. We are unable to subscribe to his submission. In an appeal against acquittal, the judgment cannot be interfered unless it is perverse or rendered without considering the evidence on record. No such ground is raised. We, therefore, hold that the appeal has no merit. 6. Since the appeal itself is without any merit, it would amount to unnecessarily harassing and vexing the respondents who have been acquitted by sending the notice on application for condonation of delay caused in filing application for leave to appeal just for asking. 7. We, therefore, dismiss the application for condonation of delay, application for leave to appeal and 3 appeal too on merits. JUDGE JUDGE /TA/