[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 OF 2007 IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 808 OF 2006 Thomas Tangapan Shettiyar ] AGe 36 years, residing at ] Durgamata Chawl, ] Vijay Nagar, Antop Hill, ] Mumbai 400 037 ]..Appellant [Ori.Accused] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondent ... Smt.Shakuntala Wadekar Advocate for Appellant Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant through this appeal has challenged the judgment and order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kurla, Bombay in Sessions Case No. 808 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 392 read with Section 34, 365 and 170 of IPC. For the offence under Section 392 of IPC, the appellant was [-2-] sentenced to suffer RI for five years and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default RI for one month. For the offence under Section 365 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for three years and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default RI for one month. For the offence under Section 170 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to SI for three months. The learned Judge directed that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: . On 9.2.2005 the complainant was proceeding in a taxi to Sahar Airport. When the taxi reached Bandra fly over, three persons came infront of taxi. They all sat in the taxi. Thereafter, those three persons robbed the complainant of foreign currency. Thereafter, the accused ran away. It is the prosecution case that accused was one of the said three persons. 3. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and order as well as [-3-] evidence on record. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a poor person. She has submitted that even during the trial, the appellant was not properly represented and the accused had cross-examined the witnesses as advocate engaged by him, was not present on many occasions. The learned advocate for the appellant has stated that she is not challenging the conviction of the appellant and she is only praying that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section 392 of IPC may be reduced. The learned APP has no objection to the sentence of imprisonment being reduced to three years. For the offence under section 365 of IPC, three years imprisonment has been imposed on the appellant and under Section 392 of IPC, five years imprisonment has been imposed on him. It is not disputed that the appellant has a clean record. 5. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to reduce the sentence under Section 392 of IPC. 6. In the result, conviction, sentence and fine [-4-] for the offence under Section 365 of IPC, is maintained. The conviction under Section 392 of IPC and fine thereunder, is also maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 392 of IPC is reduced to three years R.I. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment under Sections 365 and 392 of IPC to run concurrently. The appellant shall serve out the remaining sentence. 7. Appeal is partly allowed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]