1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.268/1999 Hemant s/o Dnyandeo Ingale, Age: 22 years, Occ: Labourer, r/o Ingale Galli, Osmanabad, Tq.& Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER versus The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT ... Counsel for the petitioner absent. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP, for respondent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 20/8/2009 ------------------------ ... P.C.: 1. The petitioner called, absent. He was absent on the earlier dates. 2. By order dt.11.8.1999, Rule was directed, returnable on 18th August 1999, at 2.15 p.m. The matter revolves to offense under Section 224 of IPC where in Summary Case No.698/1995, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, by order dt. 2 2nd July, 1996, convicted the accused/revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, further simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The above conviction was subject of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.63/1996 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, and by order dt.23.7.1999, the appeal came to be dismissed. Both the orders are sought to be quashed in the present revision. 4. I have gone through both the orders under challenge with the assistance of learned A.P.P. It is indicated that the accused/revision petitioner was in Police custody on 9.5.1995 and under the ruse and guise of attending nature's call, the petitioner/accused went near latrine, pushed the complainant, head constable Shivaji Mane and ran away by jumping the compound wall, followed by report (Exh.15). It was subsequently that the accused was nabbed behind latrine of Ambika Body Works and he was brought to Police Station. 5. This Court, by order dt.18.8.1999, directed the accused/applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.3,000/- with one solvent surety. 3 6. It is not clear as to whether the accused/applicant has availed such bail or that he has undergone sentence under Section 224 of IPC. The fact remains, the nature of evidence of the Police Officer and the witnesses unerringly establish that while the accused was in Police custody, he attempted to escape and virtually succeeded in escaping but nabbed outside the Police Station. 7. I do not think that any interference is warranted. There is no error of law or on facts. No perversity that could be pointed. The judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and that of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, is within the terms of legal framework. It does not warrant any interference. Consequently, Criminal Revision Application (No.268/1999) dismissed. Rule discharged. The accused/revision petitioner to surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, to undergo rest of the conviction. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/268-09crra ...