1 ndm 11 appr.120.10 anr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 120 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 220 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 220 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ... APPLICANT Vs. Bhanudas Krishna Pawar and ors. ... RESPONDENTS ­­­­­­­­ Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for Applicant ­ State. ­­­­­­­­ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16 th April, 2010. P.C. 1 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing revision application. 2 For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Revision Application taken on board. 2 3 The learned APP submits that the accused were charged with the serious offences of misappropriating the pension, which has supposed to be payable to the freedom fighters, who had taken part in the Goa liberation. He also submits that both the Courts have erred in acquitting the accused. 4 Both the Courts have concurrently held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The perusal of the judgment would reveal that the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The learned trial Court as also the Appellate Court has found that PW­1 had himself given an admission in the cross­ examination, that the accused No.7 had not prepared forged and bogus entry in the Gram Panchayat Resolution. It has further be seen that PW­2 himself admitted that the Resolution dated 06 th June, 1955 on which prosecution relied, was not inserted in the record subsequently. 5 The scope of interference in order of acquittal is very limited, unless it is found that the view taken is perverse or impossible, no interference is warranted. 6 No case is made out for interference. Hence rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]