( 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 REVISION APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2006 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2006 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2006 Prakash Uddhav Nagare .. Applicant. Versus Pundlik Vitthal Nagare & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Sandeep Shinde i/b.Mr.Vinod Shah for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Mr.Sandeep Shinde for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 faced trial being Sessions Case No.46 of 2006 in the Court of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Malegaon for charge under Section 302 r/w.Section 34 of I.P.C. This case came to be instituted on the basis of an FIR filed by the present applicant. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3 conducted a trial and acquitted respondents 1 to 4 of charge under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. by order dated 28.9.2006. Being aggrieved by this judgement and order this revision is filed by the FIR complainant, the present applicant. 3. My attention was drawn by the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State that the State had ( 2 ) filed Criminal Application No.500 of 2007 being application in the nature of leave to file appeal against the order impugned in this revision. The learned A.P.P. tendered to the Court, a copy of the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by this Court thereby refusing to grant leave to file the appeal. This development was made known to the Court by way of abundant precaution. 4. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Shinde appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. for the State in support of the impugned judgement. The learned Trial Judge has considered the entire evidence on record in the proper perspective and has also taken into consideration the defence of alibi rendered by respective accused. The learned Trial Judge has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and has recorded the finding of acquittal. 5. Considering the impugned order, I hold that there is no need to remand the matter for reconsideration of evidence. 6. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order and the revision is dismissed. ( 3 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)