1 21-47-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2011 Srividya N. Tanel .. Applicant Vs. Nitin Y. Tandel & Another .. Respondents. Ms. Jyotsna Kamble i/b. Mrs. I.M.Koparkar, for the Applicant. Mrs. P.P.Bhosale, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 4th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. This is a revision application filed against judgment and order dated 17th March, 2010 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai for quashing and setting aside the oder of acquittal passed in favour of Respondent no.1 who is accused no.1. 2 21-47-11.sxw 2 In all, four accused persons - husband, mother, sister and grand mother of accused no.1 came to be held under section 498-A, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of I.P.C. on a complaint of present appellant, wife of accused no.1. All except accused no.1, were acquitted of all the charges in a trial by judgment and order dated 17th March, 2003 passed by trial court. Only accused no.1. was held guilty under section 498-A of offences of cruelty and harassment. It was found that no case of physical cruelty was proved. Therefore, the said order of acquittal was not challenged by the complainant. Consequently, accused no.1 -husband preferred the First Appeal against the order of conviction under section 498-A. 3 Perused the said judgment and order. Nothing is pointed out to show that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in not considering the entire evidence on the charge of cruelty. The re-appreciation evidence is permissible in the appeal. The sole testimony of the complainant on the point of physical or mental cruelty was not believed. The complainant has also held and it is also mentioned that there is a considerable delay for lodging the complaint and the same was not accepted for its serious infinity, giving rise to the doubt in the prosecution case. It has been rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused no.1 was never given an 3 21-47-11.sxw opportunity to explain the evidence, stating the facts and circumstances that constitute “cruelty” in an order passed by the learned Magistrate for conviction and as such the conviction of the trial court could not sustain in law. It is mentioned in para 20 of the judgment that :- “.... no questions were put to the appellant in his statement u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing against him, therefore, unquestioned material cannot be used against him for the purpose of conviction. The sum and substance of the arguments of the appellant’s Advocate can be stated in one sentence that ‘ a false case has been made to appear as a true case’.” 4 Considering the limited scope of Revision, no perversity found. Hence, no interference. Revision application is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.)