( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3558 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Vijay s/o. Raosaheb Jambkar .. Respondent Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the applicant. Shri P.N. Kalani, A.P.P. for sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 28.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against order of acquittal of original accused No. 4/ respondent of offences punishable under section 9 (b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and under section 286 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is said that the land on which godown was constructed by proposed Ratnaprabha Sugar Factory, Pedgaon, is belonging to accused no.4. It is also case of the prosecution that the explosives owned by respondent Nos. 1 to ( 2 ) 3 were stored in the godown and there was also “Chullah” of watchman nearby. It is specifically stated that on 03.10.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. complainant P.I. Salunke and his party opened godown and found fire crackers worth Rs. 3,06,121/- belonging to accused No.1, fire crackers worth Rs. 1,86,171/- belonging to accused No.2 and fire crackers worth Rs. 2,11,702/- belonging to accused No.3. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were having bills of purchasing the fire crackers but they had no licence for possessing them and thus they have committed offence. 3. In para 22 of the judgment it is observed by the J.M.F.C. Parbhani while deciding R.C.C. Nos. 551 of 2007 that so far as accused No. 4 is concerned, the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.4 has any concern with the warehouse of proposed Ratnaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory and the seized fire crackers. Therefore, accused No.4 was acquitted. Even assuming for a moment that the land is belonging to accused No.4, it is case of the prosecution that proposed Ratnaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory has constructed godown on the said land and as such it is the factory which is in possession of the godown and it permitted ( 3 ) accused Nos. 1 to 3 to store fire crackers in the godown illegally. It can be said that Ratnaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory is responsible. It is difficult to hold that accused No.4 is in actual possession of the godown belonging to the factory or he was in any way responsible for storage/ possession of fire crackers. 4. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, this is not a case where leave to file appeal against acquittal of accused No.4/respondent can be granted. Hence, leave rejected. The Criminal Application stands dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3558.09