..(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.3975 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Smt.Sima Atul Shankpal. ..Applicant. Versus The Head Master Mrs.Hema Manmohan & 2 Ors. ..Respondents. .. Mr.B.D.Suryawanshi, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th September, 2007 passed by the learned JMFC, IInd Court, Thane in RCC No.99/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent Nos.1 & 2-orig. accused Nos.1 & 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 11 read with 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the ..(2).. Applicant-orig.complainant. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 3. The complainant was working as a teacher at Yashodhan Education Trust English medium High School. Respondent No.1 was the headmistress of the school and respondent No.2 was the Chairman. The case of the complainant is that she was terminated from service in the year, 1990. Thereafter she was reinstated. Her contention is that arrears of her backwages amounting Rs.1,50,365/- are not paid by the accused to her as per the order passed by the School Tribunal. The order of the School Tribunal which is at Exh.15, shows that the management was directed to pay the backwages to the complainant of the post she was attached to from the date of alleged termination till she is reinstated if not paid & the said order was to be complied within 40 days of the date of knowledge or from the receipt of the copy of the order whichever is earlier. It is the contention of the complainant that the order is not complied by the accused. ..(3).. 4. It is pertinent to note that the complainant herself has admitted in her cross-examination that she is unable to tell her suspension and termination period datewise. The complainant has not mentioned the actual period for which the management is liable to pay the wages to her. If the order of School Tribunal is perused, it is seen that in the said order it is mentioned that the respondents failed to pay the salary of the complainant from May 1990 to August 1990. The said appeal was decided as the Management has withdrawn the termination order. There is no evidence either documentary or oral to show that during which period the complainant was terminated or on which date she was reinstated by the management. The said period has not been conclusively brought on record by the complainant. The complainant herself has categorically stated that she is unable to tell her suspension and termination period. Nor she has filed any document about the same. 5. It is the contention of the complainant ..(4).. that she has calculated her salary as Rs.1600/- p.m. for the year 1990. further in the same breath, she has admitted that she has no documentary evidence to show that her basic salary is Rs.1600/- p.m.. She has further stated that the amount of salary calculated by her was never paid to her by the trust. Therefore, she has not conclusively proved that her agreed salary was Rs.1600/- p.m. However the extract of salary register for the period December, 1989 to March, 1990 filed at Exhs.19 to 22 respectively, shows that she has received salary of Rs.700/- and she has signed on the same. She has tried to explain the said fact by deposing that the trust has not paid salary of Rs.400/- to her. However, she has never made any complaint in that respect & hence, in view of documentary evidence, oral evidence of the complainant cannot be accepted without any material to substantiate the same. Thus, the complainant has utterly failed to bring cogent evidence regarding her termination and when she was reinstated and the amount of her salary. 6. Moreover, in view of the ratio laid down in ..(5).. the case of Venkat Dattatraya Nandvate Vs. Venkat Dattatraya Nandvate Vs. Venkat Dattatraya Nandvate Vs. Dattatraya Rambhau Ambad & another Dattatraya Rambhau Ambad & another Dattatraya Rambhau Ambad & another, reported in 2002(3) MH.L.J. 301 2002(3) MH.L.J. 301 2002(3) MH.L.J. 301, accused No.1 who is Head Mistress cannot be held liable for the prosecution. The complainant has also failed to bring any cogent evidence regarding breach of order of School Tribunal being committed by the respondent-accused No.2. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 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.)