... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4068 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4068 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4068 OF 2005 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT’S COURT’S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ........................................................... Shri D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the Applicant. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 06, 2006. DATE : DECEMBER 06, 2006. DATE : DECEMBER 06, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned A.P.P for the State. The acquittal of the Respondents is for offences punishable under section 324, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After having heard the learned A.P.P for the State and after perusing the impugned Judgment and Order, I find that no case is made out for grant of leave. The complainant clearly admitted that his relationship with the accused persons was strained. Apart from unexplained delay in lodging the report, the learned Judge on examination of evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 found that their version does not corroborate the testimony ... 2 ... of the complainant. The learned Judge found that certain injuries on his person were not explained by the complainant. The view taken by the learned Judge appears to be a possible view on the basis of evidence. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE