1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.REVN.APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2007 (NARAYANRAO BABANJI INGOLE...Vs.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.P. Bodalkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. A.R.Taiwade, A.P.P. for Respondent/ State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2008. 1. This revision is directed against judgment of acquittal of respondent No.2, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Special Case No.3/2005, whereby the learned Judge acquitted respondent No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Judge acquitted the respondent, particularly on the ground that the respondent himself claimed to have belonged to Scheduled Tribe 'Chambhar'. The prosecution had not tendered any evidence that respondent No.2 belonged to a caste not included in Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.2 was obviously not expected to prove his caste. It was for the prosecution to prove that he belonged to a caste which was not included in Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes list. 2 2. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, cannot be faulted. No case for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.