30. CRI. REVN 79 of 2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.79/2025 Gajanan Sitaram Ingle ...Versus… State of Maharashtra, Through Public Prosecutor, Police Station Deulgaon Raja, Tq. Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldhana and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. V.B. Bhise and Mr. A. S. Dhage, Advocates for applicant Ms Prachi Joshi, APP for respondent No.1/State Ms Shagoon Verma, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2 CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 24/09/2026 1. The applicant has filed the present Revision Application praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16/10/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Appeal No.26/2017, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant and confirming the judgment and order dated 02/06/2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Deulgaon Raja in Summary Criminal Case No.1653/2007 acquitting the accused for committing an offence punishable under Sections 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946. 2. The case of the prosecution is as under :- Complainant Gajanan Sitaram Ingle had lodged a complaint to the Collector Office, Buldhana alleging that he was the owner of field Gat No.126 admeasuring 0.57 HR, 2026:BHC-NAG:13061 30. CRI. REVN 79 of 2025.odt 2 situated at Mouza Deulgaon Mahi. On the request made by him, raid was conducted by the officers of Special Squad of District level in order to search out who is running illegal money lending business. Thereafter, District Sub Registrar, Co-operative Society, Buldhana had conducted raid on 17/03/2007 on the shop and house of accused Gajanfarkha Roshankha Pathan and accused Nadekha Roshankha Pathan, resident of Deulgaon Mahi and in search, it was found that they were in possession of blank stamp papers and other suspicious documents. Thereafter, panchnama was conducted in this regard and seized the incriminating material. Officers of such squad had come to the conclusion that accused persons were running illegal money lending transaction. Consequently, report was lodged by Ramdhan Bibane, employee of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Deulgaon Raja to the Police Station, Deulgaon Raja. On the basis of the said report, crime was registered vide FIR No.3009/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13A, 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 against the accused persons. 3. The learned Trial Court, after perusing the evidence led by the prosecution, has acquitted the respondent No.2 vide judgment and order dated 02/06/2017. The appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant also came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 16/10/2024. The applicant is thus before this Court challenging the acquittal of the respondent No.2 herein. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that both the learned Courts below have ignored the oral and documentary evidence brought on record and have failed to 30. CRI. REVN 79 of 2025.odt 3 appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It is submitted that during the raid on the house of the accused person, blank stamp paper of Rs.20/- was found and the document which seized prima facie discloses that the accused person is running illegal money lending transaction. It is also submitted that the material witnesses PW 2- Ramdhan Bibane and PW 3 – Rajendra Ghonge as well as PW 5 – Ashok Kharat have specifically established the money lending business being carried out by the respondent No.2 without any licence. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses was ignored by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, which has resulted in the acquittal of respondent No.2. 5. The prosecution has failed to examine the applicant as a witness and merely on the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the applicant should not result in acquittal of the respondent No.2. The lacunae deliberately left by the prosecution cannot go to the disadvantage of the applicant. The applicant could have been permitted by the learned Trial Court by issuing summons to examine himself and further relying upon such evidence, the learned lower Courts should have convicted the applicant. In the absence of such exercise being undertaken, the learned lower Courts below have committed an error, which needs to be corrected by this Court in the Revision. 6. It is further submitted that the cogent and reliable evidence of Bhanudas Doiphode, Tukaram Kadam, Baburao Diophode and Arun Ingle was conveniently ignored by both the learned lower Courts, which has resulted into acquittal of the respondent No.2. Hence, the impugned judgment and 30. CRI. REVN 79 of 2025.odt 4 order needs to be corrected by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The respondent No.2 shall be thus convicted for the offence punishable under the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. 7. As against this, the learned appointed Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 vehemently submits that the applicant has failed to make out a case for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The learned Revisional Court has specifically observed that the real brother of the applicant Arun Sitaram Ingle had appeared before the Court, however, failed to examine himself to give the evidence against the respondent No.2/accused. The learned Trial Court has granted ample opportunities to both Gajanan Sitaram Ingle and Arun Sitaram Ingle, however, none of them had come forward to lead evidence. In the absence of complainant himself or his brother leading positive evidence to establish the offence, the learned Trial Court was left with the testimony of only the circumstantial witnesses, namely, Baburao Santosh Doiphode and Tukaram Kadam. The witnesses Baburao Santosh Doiphode and Tukaram Kadam have specifically denied that they have obtained loan from the respondent No.2. The other two witnesses Tukaram Patil and Narayan Khedkar were also not examined by the prosecution and as such the charge that the respondent No.2 was carrying out the business of money lending without any licence was therefore not established beyond doubt. The learned Trial Court has therefore rightly acquitted the respondent No.2 for the charges. The learned Appellate Court has also upheld the acquittal of the respondent No.2/accused. Thus, the applicant has failed to make out a case for interference of this Court in 30. CRI. REVN 79 of 2025.odt 5 its revisional jurisdiction and the revision is devoid of substance and merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 16/10/2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Appeal No.26/2017. I have also gone through the judgment and order dated 02/06/2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Deulgaon Raja in Summary Criminal Case No.1653/2007. Perusal of the record shows that the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses. The accused did not examine any defence witness. The Trial Court has specifically recorded that PW 1 – Bhanudas Doiphode has failed to support the prosecution case that he took a hand loan of Rs.12,000/- from the accused. Witness No.4 – Tukaram Kadam has also failed to support the case of prosecution that the respondent No.2 was carrying out the business of money lending and also considering the shaky evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has also acquitted the respondent No.2. The learned Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the evidence of the prosecution in detail and has found that the prosecution has failed to make out a case beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent No.2/accused was carrying out the business of money lending without any licence. 9. The learned Trial Court has specifically observed that the witnesses Arun Ingle and Gajanan Ingle have failed to appear and depose as per the prosecution case. Witnesses Baburao Santosh Doiphode and Tukaram Kadam have specifically denied to have received any hand loan from the 30. CRI. REVN 79 of 2025.odt 6 respondent No.2 so as to establish the case of illegal money lending. The witnesses Tukaram Patil, Narayan Khedkar, Ranjana Deokar, Duryodhan and Sheikh Yunus Haji Sheikh Yunus did not come up to record their statements before the Investigating Officer and as such, the documents which were allegedly found in the house of the respondent No.2/accused, were not substantiated by the oral depositions of the aforesaid witnesses. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, which would prove the guilt of the respondent No.2/accused beyond doubt, the learned Trial Court was left with no other option but to acquit the respondent No.2/accused giving advantage and benefit of lacunae in the prosecution case. The learned Appellate Court has also considered in detail the depositions of the witnesses and has rightly refused to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Stephen Vs. Santhanasamy, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 115 in paragraph No.10 has observed thus :- “10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and on a plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC. it has to be held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Though and as observed hereinabove, the High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure, etc. however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial court and/or the first appellate court, as the case may be." 30. CRI. REVN 79 of 2025.odt 7 11. After going through the judgments and orders passed by the learned lower Courts below, I do not see any manifest error of law or procedure adopted by both the learned lower Courts below, which would result in miscarriage of justice. No case is made out for interference of this Court to remit the matter to the Trial Court by quashing and setting aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal. The Criminal Revision Application is devoid of substance and merit and is thus liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. 12. Fees of the learned appointed Counsel for the respondent No.2 be paid as per rules. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) Wadkar Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 01/10/2026 16:17:08