PANDURANG S/O. TULSHIRAM KHODADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38688


                                               *1*                     914appln2087o18


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2087 OF 2018
                                IN REVNST/208/2018
                                      WITH
                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.208 OF
                                      2018

                        PANDURANG S/O. TULSHIRAM KHODADE
                                      VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                              ...
                Shri N.L. Jadhav a/w Shri Ravindra Wankhede, Advocate for the
                Applicant.
                Shri A.A.A. Khan, APP for the Respondent/State.
                                              ...


                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 25 August 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.          Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the

                learned APP.


                2.          This is an application for condonation of delay of 43

                days in filing the Criminal Revision Application. For the reasons

                stated in the application, delay is condoned. Criminal Application

                No.2087/2018 is allowed accordingly.
                               *2*                      914appln2087o18


3.          By consent of the parties, Criminal Revision

Application is taken up for final hearing. This revision is filed

against acquittal of the respondents/ accused.


4.          The applicant is challenging the judgment and order

dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-1, Ahmednagar, in Appeal No.106/2015 thereby, dismissed

the appeal filed by the present applicant and confirmed the

judgment and order dated 02.04.2015 passed by the learned

JMFC, Parner, in Regular Criminal Case No.50/2004 whereby,

the accused persons are acquitted from offences punishable under

Sections 143, 379, 447, 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal

Code.


5.          Brief facts of the prosecution are that, the applicant/

complainant was the Principal in the school and accused Nos.2, 3

and 6 were office bearers of the society under which the said

school is established. Accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 were not concerned

with the said society and school. However, according to the

allegation of the applicant/ complainant, on 03.07.2003 at about

12:00 noon, the accused persons under influence of liquor

entered the school and abused the applicant in filthy language. It
                                  *3*                   914appln2087o18


is alleged that accused No.1 alleged to have threatened the

applicant to give resignation of all employees and also demanded

Rs.1 lac, otherwise, accused No.1 will kill the applicant. Accused

No.4 allegedly to have caught hold collar of the applicant and

slapped him twice. It is alleged that accused persons forcibly

took away some documents from the school. It is alleged that

though some employees of the school were present, but they

could not intervene due to terror of the accused persons. Though

the applicant tried to lodge the complaint with the police station,

but the police did not take any action. Therefore, on 20.08.2003,

the complainant filed private complaint bearing Criminal M.A.

No.146/2003 and the criminal law was set into motion.

Accordingly, Crime bearing C.R. No.10/2003 was registered

with the Parner Police Station.


6.          After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed

against the accused persons. Charge (exhibit 44) was framed for

offences punishable under Sections 143, 379, 447, 323 read with

149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried. After recording evidence and hearing the

parties, the learned JMFC vide the impugned order, acquitted the
                                *4*                    914appln2087o18


accused persons. The appeal against acquittal filed by the

applicant is also dismissed. Hence, this revision.


7.           Learned advocate for the applicant submits that both

Courts below have committed grave error by not considering

evidence brought before it in proper perspective. According to

him, guilt of the accused persons has been properly established

by leading cogent evidence. As such, both the Courts below

ought to have convicted the accused persons. Learned advocate,

therefore, prayed for considering the revision and issuing notice

to the respondents.


8.           Learned APP adopted the submissions of learned

advocate for the applicant.


9.           After perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident

that after recording evidence, learned JMFC has observed that

the testimony of the complainant (PW-1) and Kaluram (PW)

shows that these witnesses acted illegally and for their personal

benefits. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the

accused persons formed unlawful assembly with common object

and assaulted the complainant. Learned JMFC has also observed

that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the accused
                               *5*                      914appln2087o18


beyond reasonable doubt. While dismissing the appeal of the

applicant/ complainant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

has observed that the prosecution witnesses have not supported

the complainant and the prosecution has failed to prove charges

levelled against the accused persons. The prosecution has failed

to prove that the accused persons have stolen school record with

dishonest intention. It has also come on record that initially when

the complaint had approached to the Police Station, the said

complaint no where disclosed that the accused persons slapped

him.


10.         It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of

this Court against an order of acquittal is narrow and is required

to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the impugned

order suffers from manifest illegality, perversity or gross

miscarriage of justice. The revisional Court is not expected to re-

appreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible.

In the present case, both the Courts below have considered the

evidence on record and have concurrently found that the

prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. On perusal of the reasons recorded by
                                       *6*                    914appln2087o18


      the Courts below, I do not find any perversity, manifest illegality

      or    non-consideration     of   material   evidence   warranting

      interference in revisional jurisdiction.


      11.          In view of the above discussion, I find that no error,

      much less any manifest illegality or perversity, is committed by

      the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of

      revisional jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision Application,

      therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.




kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )