STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DNYANOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This appeal is filed challenging judgment and order dated 18.03.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Court at Beed in Special Case No.01/1990.

(2.) The facts of the case are extensively stated in the impugned judgment from paragraph Nos.02 to 08, same are not necessary to be reproduced herein, because the very impugned judgment states the facts elaborately.

(3.) This is an appeal against the acquittal filed by the State. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.I and P.W.2. Relying on the evidence of the complainant the learned A.P.P. would submit that, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of Rs.800/- from the respondent. According to the learned A.P.P. so far demand is concerned on 09th August, 1989 there is evidence of P.W.I/ panch which corroborates the evidence of the complainant. The panch witness has specifically stated about the demand of amount by the respondent herein. It is further stated that, when the evidence of the complainant on demand, acceptance and recovery is corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of the panch witness Babu Gujar, in that case the Special Court was not correct in acquitting the respondent. The learned A.P.P. also invited my attention to the arguments advanced before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, this appeal may be allowed.