FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. SUO SUO SUO MOTO APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2002 MOTO APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2002 MOTO APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2002 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2002 APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2002 APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- Office Notes, Office Memorada Court‘s or Judge‘s orders or directions and Orders. Registrar‘s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------- None for the appellant. Smt. V.R. Bhosale App for respdt. CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR & V.G.PALSHIKAR & V.G.PALSHIKAR & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DTAED: DTAED: DTAED: 12TH OCTOBER, 2006 12TH OCTOBER, 2006 12TH OCTOBER, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a Suo Moto notice issued by the learned Single Judge of this court on 26-3-2002 while dealing with Cri. Appeal No.239 of 2002. 2. The appellant and others were prosecuted in Sessions trial No.183/98 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who found accused no.1 guilty under sections 498-A and 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under 498-A IPC and sentenced him under 307 IPC for five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. This punishment was considered inadequate by the learned Judge. 3. We have perused the judgment. Adequate reasons are given for inflicting the punishment of five years R.I. under section 307 IPC. The minimum punishment under 304-II IPC can be for five years. Therefore using judicial discretion and awarding five years R.I. under 307 IPC can be called injudicious exercise of discretionary power. In our opinion, therefore there is no need for continuing this proceeding for enhancement. Suo Moto Application No. 1.02 is therefore rejected. 4. The main appeal No.239/02 is therefore liable to be heard by Single Judge of this court. It be put up before appropriate Bench for hearing. ...