1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2011 Mr. Rakshpal Udaypal Abrol ...Applicant. v/s. The State ...Respondent. Mr. Pradeep Havnur i/by Shri Bharat Rathod ,advs. For the Applicant. Mr. P.S.Hingorani, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Applicant was prosecuted, tried and convicted under Sections 353 and 506(1) and on each count, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo further R.I. for one month by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 24th Court, Borivali by the judgment and order dated 30.6.2010. In Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2010 filed by the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to S.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 353 and S.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 506(1) of the I.P.C. 2 2 The learned counsel for the applicant made a statement at the outset that he would not challenge the conviction but would pray for leniency in the sentence on the ground that accused/applicant is a senior citizen aged about 69 years and is suffering from hypertension and ischemic heart disease, which requires frequent medical check-ups. According to him, if he is required to go jail, it may adversely affect his health. The learned counsel stated that applicant was in custody for four days initially when he was arrested and then after dismissal of his appeal on 8.4.2011, he was immediately taken in custody. Thus, he has already undergone imprisonment for ten days and, therefore, he prays to reduce the sentence as undergone and for enhancement of the fine amount. The record reveals that incident had occurred in the year 1992 when the applicant had allegedly obstructed officers of the Excise Department from discharging their function of recording the statement of one Bhanumati. F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1992 and since 1992, applicant is facing hanging sword of this case. After perusal of the record and on taking into consideration the incident, period taken in conclusion of the trial, the age and health condition of the applicant at present, in my considered opinion, the order to the extent of sentence needs to be modified. 3 3 Therefore, revision application is partly allowed. Conviction for the offences punishable under sections 353 and 506(1) is maintained. However, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, which he has already undergone and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- on each count and in default to pay fine, S.I. for one month on each count. The learned counsel points out that accused/applicant has already deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- as fine. Balance amount be deposited by him within one week. Subject to this, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of the order. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)