.(1). IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTO CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.24 OF 1993 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.444 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra. ..Appellant. -Versus- Ramesh @ Ramlya Bapu Thakur. ..Respondent. .... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the Appellant-State. Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate for the Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned APP for the appellant-State and the learned Advocate for the respondent - orig.accused No.1. 2. By judgment and order dated 24.7.1992 passed by the learned Judge, Designated Court in TADA Special Case No.3 of 1990, the learned Judge convicted the respondent-orig.accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant .(2). was found in possession of revolver. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the appellant as stated in para-1 above. However, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment and/or fine, he released the appellant -accused on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his entering into a bond for a period of one year in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount. To appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period if he commits breach of the bond i.e. if he commits any offence and offence under the Arms Act or concerning possession of any weapon which may be also punishable under the Bombay Police Act. In the meantime he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. He shall not keep company with anti-social elements and he shall be under supervision of the District Probation Officer for the said period and shall report to the District Probation Officer once in 3 months. The trial Court further directed that the accused .(3). Ramesh @ Ramlya Bapu Thakur shall be released forthwith on his executing his personal bond as required under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 4. This application is only in respect of inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the respondent. According to the prosecution, some sentence of actual imprisonment ought to have been imposed on the respondent - accused. 5. It is seen that the respondent was a young boy of 23 years at the time of the incident. There was no previous history of any previous antecedents till he was arrested in the present case. It is seen that the trial Court had called for the report of the District Probation Officer in the case of the accused. The report was favourable to the respondent - accused and the District Probation Officer recommended that the accused may be released on probation of good conduct with or without bond under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The said report is at Exh.34. .(4). 6. The prosecution agency has not brought to my notice any material to show that the accused does not deserve an opportunity to improve and become a good citizen. Moreover, it is seen that though the trial Court has released the respondent under the Probation of Offenders Act, however, as an undertrial in this case, the respondent has languished in jail for about two years i.e. from 20th July, 1990 till 10th July, 1992. Thus, it is seen that the respondent has already suffered a lot as an undertrial prisoner which would be a sufficient lesson to him. 7. The punishment provided under Section 25(I-B)(a) is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and fine. The applicant has been in custody in this case for a period of about two years. Looking to this fact and the fact that prior to this incident as well as thereafter the record of the respondent - accused is clean, and the age of the respondent at the time of the incident, today after 19 years have elapsed after .(5). the incident, I do not think that this is a fit case to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent - accused. Hence, Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)