1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2000 Shantilal Zumbarlal Bardota PETITIONER VERSUS Dattu Ramdas Davane, and another RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Bora with Mr.S.C.Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Yuvraj Kakade with Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 03/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. In this matter, rule is issued on 28/06/2002. 2. By the present revision application, the applicant who is the original complainant in an offence registered with Karjat Police Station vide C.R. No. 26/1996 punishable u/s. 381 and 384 of The Indian Penal Code for which the respondent no.1 was tried and was convicted by J.M.F.C. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar vide his judgment and order dated 02/09/1998 and the respondent no.1 was convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 381 of IPC and sentenced to suffer SI 2 till rising of the Court and to pay the fine of Rs.300/- i.d. Suffer S.I. for the period of 30 days. The first respondent was acquitted for an offence punishable u/s. 384 of The I.P.C. It further appears that this order was challenged by the State in the Court of Sessions, Ahmednagar by preferring revision application no.2/1999. The said revision application was disposed of by the Learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide his judgment and order dated 28/01/2000 by which the criminal revision was dismissed. This dismissal of the criminal revision is the challenge of the present criminal revision as by the present revision, the original complainant seeks interference of this Court by enhancing the punishment awarded to respondent no.1 3. Heard learned counsel Shri.Bora, appearing for respondent no. 1 followed by the arguments of Shri.Yuvraj Kakade h/f. Shri.N.V. Gaware for respondent no.1 and learned APP Shri.N.B.Patil for respondent no.2. 4. Considering the limited scope in deciding revision application u/s. 401 of The Criminal Procedure Code, it is necessary to consider whether any law point is involved in the present criminal revision application which require to be considered by this Court. 5. In this light, the observation of the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application no.2/1999 require to be considered as it is observed in para no.4 of the judgment that, “the learned Magistrate, to my mind has correctly caught the nerve of the matter by 3 mentioning a fact that it is only a technical offence, which offence, which appears to have been committed by the present respondent, which has practically compelled to invite the part of punishment prescribed u/s. 381 of the IPC for the purpose of inflicting some part thereof against the accused. It is not the entire punishment of 7 years R.I. that is called for in every case of offence u/s. 381 of Penal Code. The background that the accused had calmly and quietly returned the said documents near the water tank to the Advocate Sumatilal, the son of complainant, was rightly and properly appreciated in its proper perspective that its direct effect on the measure of punishment. The entire score of severity, therefore, has been completely reduced by this fact alone which has been properly accounted for and taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate.“ Considering these observations in the judgment of the Revisional Court, in the light of the judgment delivered by analyzing and scrutinizing by the Revisional Court, according to this Court, no interference is required in the impugned order under challenge. No merits in the present petition and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.rev.appl.100-2000