IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION REVISION REVISION APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2005 Sanjeev P. Mehta ...Applicant vs. Mohan Belwalkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for the Applicant Mr.U.V.Nikam, A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : SEPTEMBER 28,2006. : SEPTEMBER 28,2006. : SEPTEMBER 28,2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Applicant. The Revision application is filed at the instance of the original complainant. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the order of acquittal in a State prosecution for offences punishable under sections 143,147, 148, 149, 341, 452, 448, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. After having heard the Advocate for the Applicant and after perusing the findings recorded by the Trial Court, I find that no case is made out for interference. This is not a case where any manifest illegality or procedural irregularity has been committed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has made certain observations regarding the manner in which the investigating machinery has acted by dispossessing the accused persons. No case is made out for interference. Revision application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE