1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1292 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .Applicant V/s. Uttam Basappa Kalasannawar .Respondent Ms Rajeshree Gadhvi, APP, for the Applicant - State None for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondent rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj by reversing the conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C., Gadhinglaj. The learned Judge seems to have refused to accept the evidence of mother and daughter stating that mother fell down in a scuffle and teeth had been uprooted in 2 that scuffle. He held that the evidence of daughter could not be believed because she was present in the Court when her mother was being cross examined. He also refused to accept the evidence of Dr.Chandrashekhar Pattamshetti PW-4 about the fracture suffered by Suvarna on her little finger because there was no X ray plate. The reasons given by the learned Judge would require re-consideration. Leave granted. Admit. Call for R & P. Action under Section 390. Needless to say, action under Section 390 means that the learned Magistrate may cause the accused to be produced before him by appropriate process and take security from them for their appearance in the Appellate Court. If the accused appear on their own, the learned Magistrate need not wait for process to be issued or served upon the accused but shall admit them to such bails as he may deem fit. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 3