1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2009 (Syed Raffique Ismail Mandari and another v. State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri S.A. Jaiswal, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 12th January, 2009 The learned counsel for the appellants seeks leave to convert this appeal into revision. Leave granted. Necessary correction be carried out in the cause title of the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana, whereby he dismissed the applicants' appeal taking exception to their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.200/-. The learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any deficiency in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, which have rightly believed the complainant and 2 held that the complainant was robbed by the two applicants of a sum of Rs.250/-. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that appropriate offence would have been one punishable under Section 382, and not one under Section 392 of the Penal Code is accepted for the sake of argument, then the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months is extremely lenient and does not call for any interference. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE pdl