UTTAM MANULAL KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Shri.Prashant Gurav for the Applicant and learned - Complainant and Respondent Shri.Sudhakar Suradkar -Respondent No.2 -In Person and learned APP Shri.H.J.Dedhia for Respondent No.1-State.

(2.) The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai as per the judgment dtd. 9/1/2018 was pleased to acquit the Respondent No.2 - Sudhakar Suradkar for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"]. The present Applicant is the Original-Complainant and he wants to challenge the correctness of the judgment and that is why, Special Leave is sought. So, the issue involved at present stage is whether Special Leave can be granted or not.

(3.) The law on this point is well settled. It is true that scope of an enquiry for grant of Special Leave and scope of an enquiry when the Appeal is finally heard after admission are different. When the Appeal is finally heard after admission, the Court is supposed to go into deeper enquiry on the basis of available evidence as to ascertain whether interference in the judgment is warranted or not. That exercise is supposed to be done after considering the accepted principles of the Evidence Act, 1872, the substantial provisions and the pronouncements made by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.