MOHAMMAD MASUD ANSARI @ MANSOOR MOHAMMAD KHALID ANSARIversusSHAIKH MUJAHED S/O. SHAIKH NASIB AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:41207




                                                    -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      903 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 253 OF 2019

                MOHAMMAD MASUD ANSARI @ MANSOOR MOHAMMAD KHALID
                                      ANSARI
                                      VERSUS
                    SHAIKH MUJAHED S/O. SHAIKH NASIB AND OTHERS

              Mr.Afzaal I.Shaikh h/f Mr.Zila Ul Mustafa, Advocate for the Applicant.
              Mr.M.A.Aher, APP for the Respondent/State.

                                    ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

                                          DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :


              1.             The Applicant is challenging the judgment and order

              passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal

              No.48/2017 dated 23.07.2019, wherein the Appeal preferred by the

              Respondents/Accused persons came to be allowed and the learned

              Sessions Judge pleased to acquit all the accused persons for the

              offences punishable u/s 452, 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.



              2.             Initially,    the   Respondents/Accused   persons   were

              prosecuted in pursuance to the report lodged by the present Applicant.

              On the basis of statement of Applicant herein recorded at Government


              khs/Sept.2026/253
                                   -2-

Hospital, Parbhani, the offence against the accused came to be

registered vide Crime No.16/2011. In the said statement, it is alleged

that the Applicant is the shop owner of hardware on the Jintur Road

and his father is Mutawalli of Dargha Sher Ali Shah Baba. At about

12.00 noon of 15.01.2011, the Accused came to his shop in auto

rickshaw.     There were certain customers present in his shop at the

relevant time. The accused entered his shop and damaged the articles.

The accused persons also alleged to have assaulted the informant.

Thus, on the basis of allegations, the FIR came to be registered and

further investigation was set into motion.



3.             After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court

framed charge at Exh.26 for the offence punishable u/s 452, 323, 324,

504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.      After recording the evidence, the

learned Trial Court initially convicted the accused persons for the

offence punishable u/s 452, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and

sentenced to suffer SI for one year and to pay of Rs.1,000/- each, in

default to suffer SI for one month. The accused persons were also

convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of the IPC and

sentenced to suffer SI for 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each,


khs/Sept.2026/253
                                       -3-

in default to suffer SI for 15 days.



4.             Being aggrieved with the said conviction order, the accused

persons preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, which

came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.48/2017. The learned

Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned Advocates for the respective

parties, was pleased to allow the appeal thereby acquitting the accused

persons.



5.             The learned Advocate for the Applicants vehemently

argued that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge failed to consider the

evidence in proper perspective. According to him, the prosecution has

rightly established the guilt of the accused before the Trial Court. After

accepting the evidence of the witnesses, the Trial Court had rightly

convicted the accused persons. There was no occasion for the learned

Sessions Judge to disturb the findings of the Trial Court. He, therefore,

submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge

is illegal and require to be quashed and set aside, thereby maintaining

the order of the learned J.M.F.C.       He further submits that the learned

Sessions Court also did not consider the testimony of the eye witnesses


khs/Sept.2026/253
                                   -4-

in proper perspective.    He, therefore, submits that the instant criminal

revision application be allowed.



6.             Heard the learned APP for the Respondent/State. He

supported the learned Advocate for Applicant, and reiterated that

instant Criminal Revision Application be allowed thereby maintaining

Trial Court’s conviction order.



7.             After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on

going through the orders passed by the Sub-ordinate Courts, it has been

found that the learned Sessions Court held that the testimony of the eye

witnesses does not inspire the confidence and as such, cannot be relied

upon.



8.             The learned Sessions Court further observed that despite

there being independent witnesses, who have been examined, have not

supported the case of informant.       As such, it is difficult to impose

conviction upon the accused persons.



9.             The learned Sessions Judge further observed that although


khs/Sept.2026/253
                                   -5-

the weapon was seized by the Investigation Officer, however, the same

was not referred to the Medical Officer, so as to prove whether the

injury inflicted upon the informant has been caused by the weapon.

Since the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused

persons, therefore the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all

the accused persons.



10.            The scope of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. empowers this Court to

examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by an

inferior Court.     Such power is required to be exercised cautiously.

Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done

and there is no abuse of power of Court. The power could be exercised

to rectify miscarriage of justice, and most sparingly that too only in

appropriate cases.



11.            After perusing the judgment delivered by the learned

Sessions Court minutely, I found that the same has been passed

considering the evidence in proper perspective and requires no

interference by this Court under its jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C.




khs/Sept.2026/253
                                  -6-

12.            Considering the above, Criminal Revision Application is

dismissed.



                                        ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)




khs/Sept.2026/253