1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 210/2009 Munnalal Dasaram Pardhi ..vs.. State of Maharashtra --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. N. Motghare, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Doifode, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED :- 19 th NOVEMBER,2009 1. This criminal revision application is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2007 in Regular Criminal Case No. 32/2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.4, Gondia and judgment and order dated 31.10.2009 passed by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2007. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel invited my attention to the finding of courts below and submitted that there is no witness to the incident and what is stated by the complainant has not been corroborated by any other evidence. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the revision, annexures thereto and submitted that 2 complainant has no grievance and the complainant is ready to compromise the matter. 3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence properly. In revision it is not permissible to reappreciate the evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and after going through the findings recorded by Courts below and particularly para nos. 7 to 9 of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, I am of the considered view that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses brought on record by the prosecution. Nothing has been indicated by learned counsel for the applicant to show that the findings are not in consonance with the evidence which is brought on record. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE kahale