1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.194 OF 2008 Beruz Rohinton Irani ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.H.H.Ponda, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. R.D. Soni i/b. M/s. Ram & Co., for Respondents 2 to 7 Mr. S.R. Shinde, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.Parties are businessmen. They are also neighbours. They carry on business of running restaurant/hotels on the Western Express highway. The incident for which the original complaint came to be filed by the applicant under Section 395, 148, 324 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C resulted in the acquittal of the accused. Hence, this Revision Application is filed. 2.The case made out by the applicant is that though he was injured in the incident and the medical certificate of Rural Hospital, Kasa, Tal: Dahanu, Dist: Thane, was a part of the charge-sheet, the prosecution failed to 2 examine the Doctor, who issued the said certificate upon the medical examination of the applicant. The case of the applicant as made out in his criminal complaint was, therefore, not corroborated and hence, the resultant acquittal. 3.It is argued on behalf of the applicant that this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The applicant s Advocate argued that the criminal case would be required to be reopened to examine such corroborative evidence and to ultimately determine the truth. 4.However, it is seen that the medical examination taken as correct shows that none of the injuries is on the vital part of the body, though weapons were used, being iron rod and stones. The essential case of the prosecution is, therefore, of simple hurt. The complaint of the applicant can therefore, be legitimately prosecuted under Section 324 of the I.P.C. That offence is compoundable. The parties are businessmen. The parties are also decent individuals carrying on business as neighbours. They have deemed it fit to bring to an end of this episode and continue their respective businesses in the locality behaving as neighbours should. 5.The accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the main accused are 3 present before the Court. The accused have been identified in the Court. Both the accused state that they tender apology to the complainant of having committed the offence of simple hurt. The complainant who is present in Court accepts the apology. 6.It is seen that for causing hurt, which is a criminal offence, a punitive action nevertheless is required to be taken. Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit in Court Rs.3000/- as and by way of fine/compensation. That amount shall be credited to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authorities account. 7.The Revision Application is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)