1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRI.APPLN.NO. 2629 OF 2008. (MADHUKAR GANPATRAO PARATE v. STATE OF MAH.& OTH.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri Sushil M. Godeswar, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. A. Taiwade, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2008. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in seeking leave to file appeal against the acquittal recorded by learned J.M.F.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 & 325 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the delay was occasioned on account of reluctance of the prosecuting machinery to prefer an appeal which led the applicant to the Legal Services Authority which then appointed the present counsel to represent the applicant's case. 3. The delay is, therefore, held to have been duly explained and condoned. 2 4. The application is disposed of accordingly. CRI.APPLICATION No.2757/2008. 5. This is an application for leave to prefer appeal against order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 and 325 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the applicant made available, for my perusal, a copy of deposition of the applicant before the trial Court. I have gone through the deposition and examined the reasons given by the learned Magistrate while acquitting the respondents. Though the applicant has claimed that he had suffered fracture there was no evidence tendered before the trial Court. In fact, applicant's own evidence shows that he has been discharged from Mayo Hospital, to which he was referred, on that day itself. The learned Magistrate also rightly observed that the applicant did not state as to what insulting language was used by the respondents towards the applicant or what threats were given. It is the case of quarrel and therefore, the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted for the view taken by him. 6. In any case, the view is not shown to be untenable or perverse. Leave refused. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE RR