... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2002 REVISION APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2002 REVISION APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2002 Sudhir Yashvant Karanjkar ...Applicant Vs. Santosh S/o Narayan Munde & Anr. ...Respondents Shri. R.A. Karale for the Applicant. Ms M.H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. Ms Rajshree Gadhvi, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 26, 2005. : JULY 26, 2005. : JULY 26, 2005. P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned A.P.P. for the State pointed out that the State has not taken a decision to file appeal against the acquittal. 2. Perusal of the notes of evidence and impugned judgment and order shows that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment and order. The learned Judge has disbelieved the prosecution story as narrated by the first informant Sudhir. The learned Judge noted that though the said Sudhir knew the accused very well, he did not disclose before the police that the motorcycle was being driven by the Accused. There is no explanation as to why he did not disclose the name of the accused in the F.I.R. lodged by him. 3. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Judge has discarded ... 2 ... the evidence of first informant Sudhir. There is no manifest error of law. Hence, no interference is called for in this Revision Application and the Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE