1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2373 OF 2007 Damayanti Damodar Bhoir ..... Applicant. (Orig. Complainant) V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents. ---- Ms. Manda Loke for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14th November, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railway Court, Virar. The complainant was doing the business of selling handkerchiefs in local train. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent No.2 was a lady constable. She demanded money from her for the purpose of allowing her to carry out her business and after the complainant told her that she had stopped doing that business, she assaulted her and, 2 therefore, she filed a complaint under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was not registered by the Police and hence the complainant lodged her complaint in court. 3. The applicant has examined six witnesses. Trail Court, however, has disbelieved the evidence of the complainant and acquitted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the offence. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the Trial Court had erred in acquitting respondent Nos. 2 and 3. She invited my attention to the notes of evidence. It is submitted that the version given by the complainant had been corroborated by other witnesses. 5. It is not possible to accept the said submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. I have gone through the notes of evidence and the paper-book which is prepared by the complainant. In the first place, the complainant was illegally carrying on the hawking business in the local train. The other witnesses who were examined by the complainant, in cross examination were not in a position to corroborate the statements of the complainant. These witnesses were cross-examined at length. In view of the discrepancies in the said statements of the complainant and the other witnesses, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. No case is, 3 therefore, made out for grant of leave to file appeal. Accordingly, leave is refused. Application is dismissed. Appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.)