:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2003 Madhav Ranganath Purandare ... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra and anr. ... Respondent ... Mr.R.V. More, for the Applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, for the Respondent State. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 2nd March 2005 P.C.: . Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. The view taken by the lower Court is a possible view. The Court below has appreciated the entire evidence on record and discarded the evidence of P.W.1 for the reasons mentioned in the impugned decision. Besides, there is discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the injury certificate, as produced, and which has not been explained by :2: the prosecution. Moreover, two separate complaints were reported and there is time gap between the two, which, again, has not been explained and creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. That is a possible view. Hence, not a case for exercising revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)