IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2008 HARISH GAJANAN NARULKAR ... Petitioner Versus S T A T E THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... Respondent Mr. Arjun F. Naik, Advocate for the applicant. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 15th January, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the Counsel for the applicant. 2. This revision is preferred against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Panaji whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused by which he was convicted for having committed offences under Section s 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The accused was directed to pay fine of Rs.2500/- and was also directed to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the Court. Both the Courts also have considered the evidence that was led before the trial Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that there was no proper appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1. He contends that P.W.1 was, actually, not travelling in the bus and, therefore, his testimony should not have been accepted. 4. After having gone through the judgments of the Courts below, I find that this point was urged before both the Courts and both the Courts concurrently held that the witness was actually travelling in the bus and there is no reason to discard his testimony. It is not shown to me as to how the appreciation of evidence was in any way perverse. No other other point was urged before me. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the petition It is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA