1 Cri-A-2860-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2860 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 Ramchandra Amarbahadur Singh ... Petitioner vs. Anilkumar Amarnath Sharma & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. S.M.Kazi,Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. U.V.Kejriwal, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is the original complainant. He filed the complaint against the accused/respondent No.1 for the offences under Sections 452 and 341 of IPC. After trial, the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, acquitted the accused holding that no case was made out by the prosecution. It appears from the evidence that Vinod Pratap son of the complainant, that the accused had come to him with a patient and had requested said Vinod Pratap to accommodate the said patient for 3 to 4 days and accordingly Vinod Pratap permitted them to stay in the premises. On the basis of the said permission, they made entry in the premises. In 2 Cri-A-2860-10.sxw view of this, it cannot be said that there was any criminal house trespass. According to the complainant, they had removed a black board and kept the same at some other place. This also cannot be sufficient to make a case under Section 341 of IPC. In view of the material, it is clear that no case is made out under Sections 341 and 452 of IPC. Therefore, I do not find any ground to grant leave to prefer appeal against acquittal. Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)