IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2008. IN IN IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2007 . CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2007 . CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2007 . Suresh Raghunath Garde ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Defendants Mr.R.V.Govilkar for the Applicant Ms.A.T.Zaveri APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18th December, 2008. DATED : 18th December, 2008. DATED : 18th December, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant came to be convicted by Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Ratnagiri, in Criminal Case No.500 of 2005. He was ordered to undergo imprisonment as well as pay fine. The applicant challenged the said conviction and order by filing appropriate proceeding before the learned District Judge being Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2006. The said appeal came to be disposed of by Order dated 6.2.2008 and the Order of Conviction passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed. The Appellate Judge, for reasons recorded in the Order excused the appellant from undergoing imprisonment and ordered to pay fine i.e. -2- to say the punishment was only in terms of fine. Naturally, as per the normal procedure, he ordered that the present applicant -appellant before him shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month i.d. of payment of fine. It is required to be mentioned that this order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, was not stayed on the very day or any time thereafter. The present applicant filed Criminal Revision Application No.589 of 2007 before this Court. Till today the said revision application is not formally admitted. 2. I have perused the application which is filed today, and at page 25, I find Order dated 10.8.2007 by which the Criminal Writ Petition No.369 of 2007 filed by the present application was adjourned for eight weeks and time to surrender was not extended. This means that the applicant was required to comply with the order of surrender. I am told across the bar that Criminal Writ Petition No.369 of 2007 was converted into Criminal Revision Application No.589 of 2007. 3. That Criminal Revision Application No.589 -3- of 2007 was before me on 5.5.2008. On hearing the learned Advocates on both sides, the request to have time to surrender was rejected and time to surrender was ultimately granted upto 16.5.2008. Learned Counsel Mr. Govilkar informed the Court that till today the applicant has not surrendered. He also informed the Court that the applicant has not deposited the fine of Rs.2,00,000/- or part thereof. This application is filed by the applicant so as to seek extension of time to surrender, with readiness and willingness to deposit certain amount of fine. 4. Across the bar the learned Counsel Mr.Govilkar submitted that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs.25,000/- as and by way of part of fine and that the said submission is also recorded in the body of the application. 5. Learned Counsel Mr.Govilkar submitted that if the applicant surrenders and then moves the Court for appropriate reliefs in the Criminal Revision Application. it would defeat the purpose of filing the Criminal Revision Application No.589 of 2007. He therefore submitted that the Court -4- should exercise its discretion and permit the applicant to deposit initially the sum of Rs.25,000/- and grant him time to surrender. 6. I have given thought to the submission advanced across the bar. It is required to be mentioned that there was no stay for the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Thereafter applicant moved this Court by way of Writ Petition, which was ultimately converted into Criminal Revision Application No.589 of 2007. For all these days i.e. from the date of Order of the learned Addl. District Judge, dated 6.2.2007 till filing of this Criminal Revision Application, not a single rupee is deposited by the applicant. It is required to be mentioned that by Order dated 5.5.2008 the applicant was granted time to surrender. That time expired on 16.5.2008. Thereafter no steps were taken by the applicant and this application has been filed by the applicant on 2.12.2008 i.e. practically after five and half months from the time to surrender came to an end. In my view, this is not a case where the court should exercise discretion and grant further time to the applicant to surrender. In my view this -5- application is required to be rejected. It is clarified that it would be open for the applicant to move the appropriate court for admission of the Criminal Revision Application No.589 of 2007 and apply for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. 7. The application is rejected. The request for extension of time to surrender is rejected. Liberty is granted to the applicant to move the appropriate Court for admission of Criminal Revision Application No.589 of 2007 and pray for appropriate reliefs before the learned Judge of the appropriate Court. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)