(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3153 OF 2006. The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Mohd.Aslam Habibul Rehman & 2 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for Applicant. Mr.Manohar N.Kandalkar & Mr.Shreeram Shirsat, Adv. for Respondents. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicant- State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgement and order dated 18th & 19th March 2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.1448/1998. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents - original accused nos.1 to 3 of the offences under section 342, 384, 397 & 506(2) r/w 34 of I.P.C. 2. I have heard the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Advocate for the respondents-accused. (2) I have perused the judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence produced by the learned A.P.P. 3. So far as sections 392 and 506(2) of I.P.C. are concerned, the learned APP fairly stated before the trial court that there is no evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused under these two sections. 4. The prosecution case is that the complainant PW.1 - Abdul was in a possession of garage in Santacruz (East). There was a dispute relating to the said garage between the complainant and one Reshamsingh. Thereafter, the complainant received threatening calls that he should settle the dispute. The said call was received on 31.12.1990 and he was told to contact one Aslam. On meeting Aslam, Aslam told him to settle the dispute. Thereafter again on 5.01.1991, the complainant received call from Aslam demanding money. On 7.01.1991, he met Aslam who took signatures from him near the City Civil Court. The said signature was taken in front of notary. Thereafter again (3) call was received on 15.01.1991. Thus, as per the complainant, last incident has occurred on 15.01.1991. Thereafter, complaint came to be filed on 6.02.1991, i.e. almost 3 weeks from the last call. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished to explain the said delay. This delay itself raises grave doubt in the mind regarding the prosecution case. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the above aspects into consideration and thereafter, he has acquitted the respondents-accused. 6. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)