SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.: - The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2006 by the learned IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Special Sessions Case No.8 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 16 of the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) read with Section 6 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Acts and under Sections 143, 147, 323 read with 149, 504 and 506 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State and the learned Advocate for the respondents. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence produced by the learned APP. 3. It is seen that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. This delay itself raises grave doubt in mind regarding the veracity of the complainant. 4. The prosecution case is that the accused persons had entered into the hotel of the complainant. At that time there was quarrel and the accused abused the complainant on his caste stating, "Tumhi Mahar Lokana Far Masti Aleli Ahe" (in Marathi). Thereafter accused No.2 had taken him out of the hotel and assaulted him. So also accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 had assaulted him. However, on perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant, it is seen that the accused had abused the complainant on his caste stating, "Tumhi Mahar Lokana Far Masti Aleli Ahe" is an omission. Further version of the complainant that accused No.2 had taken him out of the hotel and assaulted him and applicant Nos.2, 3 & 4 had also assaulted him are also omissions. It is seen that the omissions are all on material points and hence they would fatally affect the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into account all these facts and thereafter he has acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 16. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected.