IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Shaikh Fateh Mohammed Mohd.Raza .. Appellant V/a. Pawaskar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Ramprakash Pandey for the Applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P.for the State. Mr.L.S.Deshmukh i/b.P,M.Patil for Respondent No.2. Mr.C.S.Shidhore i/b.Vijay Kumar & Co.for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 29th , 2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is the application for leave to file an appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai on 4th October, 2008. 1 3. Original complaint was preferred before Metropolitan Magistrate Court for the alleged offence punishable under section 504 of Indian Penal Code which was committed on 15th February, 2000. Reportedly, applicant had filed writ petition before the High Court on certain issue of width of the road that stood constructed in his area. Said writ petition came to be dismissed and Bombay Municipal Corporation was directed to construct the road as per the Town Planning Scheme. On 15th February, 2000 when the complainant had been in the office of the Respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 was also present. At that time, both the Respondents told the applicant to withdraw the writ petition which was filed in the High Court. But when the applicant told that he will not withdraw the writ petition, Respondent No.1 started abusing the applicant in filthy language and also threatened to kill him. This was the cause of lodging the complaint which was filed on 17th February, 2000. Admittedly, apart from evidence of applicant himself, there was no material brought before the court. Considering such evidence of the Applicant, Trial Magistrate found the said evidence insufficient to convict the accused and consequently the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. 4. In the opinion of this Court, after going through the reasoning and after perusing the papers accompanying the present application to leave and after hearing the arguments, it must be said 2 that it is not a case in which said matter is again to be reagitated by allowing the appeal. In view of the above, the the present application stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 3