-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. NO. 228 OF 2011 Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai. ..Applicant. Versus Jawaharlal Naskar & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. R. A. Malandkar for the Applicant. Mr. S. C. Daswadikar for R-1. Mr. D. R. More, APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This Revision is filed challenging the 1st respondent’s acquittal for the offence punishable under section 471 read with 394(1)(3) (i) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Trial Court convicted respondent no.1 and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.22,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. In an appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the Magistrate’s order and acquitted the accused – respondent no.1 herein. 2. Under section 394(1)(e)(i) of the MMC Act, 1888, no person shall carry or allow or suffer to be carried on, in or upon any premises any of the trades specified in Part-IV of Schedule- M or operations connected with any such trade. Part-IV deals srp -: 2 :- with trades or processes or operations connected with which the traders shall not carry out without a licence. Respondent no.1 is charged with the offence that he is refining precious metals or recovering them from embroideries, photographic papers films or any other commodity whatsoever. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused mainly relied upon the evidence of Mr. Janayt Hire, [PW-1] the Lincence Inspector. The evidence of this witness does not give any idea about the refining process, its mechanism and machinery involved, if any. The evidence also does not give any particulars about the raw material with the help of which the respondent no.1 is alleged to have prepared the finished product. The lower Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence on record has rightly found that evidence of this witness is vague, which is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused–respondent no.1 herein and accordingly acquitted him. The view taken by the lower appellate Court is a possible view, which need not be disturbed in a revision challenging the acquittal. The petition is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)