1 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 *** Jaichand S/o Ramprakash Khusbh, Age: 36 years, Occu.: Driver, R/o Motilal Society, 3 Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane. ... PETITIONER. Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through S.P. Cantonment Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT *** Mr. P. F. Patni, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. S. D. Shelke, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATED:- 29th NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Patni for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mrs. Shelke for Respondent/ state. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This revision application was before this Court on 25th February, 2010. This Court, after 2 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 hearing counsel for the petitioner, issued notice which was accepted by learned A.P.P. Record was called for. Oral request was made by the petitioner for his release on bail. Petitioner was granted bail to the petitioner on same terms and conditions on which he was released on bail by the trial Court. However, petitioner was directed to execute fresh P.R. Bond. In view of this order, Mr. Patni submits that bond and surety was furnished in the trial Court and petitioner was actually released on 27th February, 2010. Mr. Patni states that Petitioner who had been taken in custody after the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.12 on 12th February, 2010 has been released on 27th February, 2010. Petitioner has undergone around 13/14 days after dismissal of his appeal by the learned Appellate Court. It was Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2008. 4. The present petitioner, has been tried in S.C.C. No.534 of 2008. Copy of judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No.2 at Aurangabad is annexed to this petition. Learned trial Court recorded conviction for the offence punishable under section 279, 338 and 427 of Indian 3 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 Penal Code. The Petitioner was directed to suffer 3 months S.I. and pay fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under section 279. In case of default of payment of fine, he was further directed to under S.I. for 15 days. For the offence under section 338 I.P.C. petitioner was directed to undergo S.I. for 3 months and for the offence under section 427 I.P.C. 3 months S.I. was directed. However, no fine was imposed to the petitioner. For the offence under section 338 and 427 no fine was imposed by learned trial Court and bail bond of present petitioner were cancelled. This judgment was delivered on 8th August, 2008 in S.C.C. NO.534 of 2008. 5. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction awarded by learned trial Court, filed Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2008 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Aurangabad which was made over to learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, at Aurangabad. This appeal has been heard and disposed of by the Appellate Court by its judgment and order passed on 12th February, 2010. The appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court for the offence under 4 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 section 427 I.P.C. is quashed and set aside. The conviction and sentence for the offences under section 279 and 338 I.P.C. have been confirmed. 6. This judgment of Appellate Court dated 12th February, 2010 has been questioned in this revision application. In other words, legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Court is challenged in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Since it was a summary trial, copies of the deposition and relevant documents have been annexed to the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel Mr. Patni and learned A.P.P. Mrs. Shelke for the Respondent/ State. Mr. Patni submits that the scene of offence Panchanama has been held, by the trial Court, to have been admitted by the present petitioner. He has pointed out observation of Court below. According to him, spot Panchanama has not been admitted by the present Petitioner. Mr. Patni, learned counsel submits that fine Rs.300/- imposed by the trial Court has been deposited. He points out that the punishment for offence under section 279 I.P.C. is 3 months or fine of Rs.1,000/-. In the case on hand 3 months punishment has been 5 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. Fine amount has been deposited by the Petitioner. Petitioner has undergone around 13/14 days as he was taken in custody after dismissal of the appeal. For the offence punishable under section 338, punishment prescribed is imprisonment for 2 years or fine of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the material brought on record, in my view, the punishment for the offence under section 338 I.P.C. can be awarded by way of fine of Rs. 1,000/- instead of directing the present petitioner to undergo substantive sentence. It is pointed out the petitioner has already undergone 15 days period for the offence punishable under section 279 I.P.C. He has also deposited Rs.300/- towards fine imposed upon him for the offence under section 279 I.P.C. In this view of the matter, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner now can be further directed to deposit Rs.1,000/- towards fine for the offence punishable under section 338 I.P.C. 8. In the result, criminal revision application accordingly is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner i.e. 3 months S.I. for offence 6 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 punishable under section 338 I.P.C. is altered to that of only payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-. For the offence under section 279 I.P.C. punishment of 3 months S.I. has been imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. Out of this imprisonment, since the petitioner has already gone 15 days imprisonment, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone. Fine imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is not disturbed as the amount has been already deposited. 9. Mr. Patni seeks four weeks time to deposit Rs. 1,000/- in view of the ensuing December vacations to this Court as well as to the trial Court. Learned A.P.P. has no objection. Four weeks time is granted to deposit the fine amount Rs.1,000/- in trial Court. In case of default, the petitioner shall undergo 15 days S.I. 10. Since the petitioner is already on bail, bail bonds stand cancelled. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:29/11/2011. ans/50 7 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: 50 OF 2010 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.:50 OF 2010 Date of decision: 29th NOVEMBER, 2011. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. B. DESHMUKH. Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No fair copy of the judgment? Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE