Heard learned counsel for Petitioners. Notice to Respondent. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for Respondent State. Heard finally at the admission stage.

2. Learned counsel for Petitioners submits that the case of prosecution is that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were quarrelling with each other under influence of drink on 31st December, 2005 at about 10.45 p.m. at Smarak Chowk, Taloda, when it is alleged that the complainant- Police Constable Dharma More intervened. At that time, it is claimed that the Petitioner No.1 -Accused No.1 used criminal force to the constable Dharma Harchand More by holding constable with his shirt while he was on duty and it tore and button of the shirt was broken. Learned counsel submits that on these facts the matter went to the trial Court and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taloda convicted Accused Nos.1 and 2 Mahendra Punju Samudre and Gopal Punju Samudre, for the offence punishable under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 7 days. The Petitioner No.1 Gopal Punju Samudre has been also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Similar punishment has been imposed for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the I.P.C. also on Accused No.1 Gopal Punju Samudre. The sentences have been directed to run consecutively. Learned counsel submitted that in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada has dismissed the Appeal.

3. According to the learned counsel for Petitioners, the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that Accused No.1 was not found to be under the influence of alcohol and only Accused No.2 was found to be under influence of alcohol. According to learned counsel, the complainant Constable Dharma Harchand More was stated to be on combing night round duty but Police Inspector concerned in evidence, stated that the Constable was on fixed point duty. Argument on this count was wrongly discarded by the Sessions Court. It has been further argued that the evidence of complainant Dharma More, PW-1 was corroborated by his departmental colleagues PW-2 Dhanraj Mahire, PW-3 Vijay Tavde, but the other constable Sarfoddin was not examined. It was argued that this was pointed out to the Sessions Court but Sessions Court did not consider that the witness has not been examined. According to learned counsel, the Panchas of the Spot Panchnama and the seizure of the shirt did not support the prosecution and the Panchnamas were proved only through the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that First Information Report was filed one hour late but same has not been considered by both the Courts below.

4. Learned A.P.P. submitted that if the Judgments are considered, they are well reasoned and minor contradictions tried to be shown, were not material. According to learned A.P.P., shirt of the police constable who was on duty, was torn by the Accused No.1 and the conviction and sentence has been properly passed.

5. In the present matter, concurrent findings of the trial Court and Sessions Court are there, holding Accused persons guilty of the offences with which they were charged. I have gone through the record and I find that the Sessions Court duly dealt with the objections which are being raised. It has been rightly observed that when there is already evidence of complainant PW-1 More supported by another two witnesses, it is immaterial whether yet another police official has been examined or not. Perusal of the copy of First Information Report, available on record, shows that on 31st December, 2005 in the night the Head Constable