1 Cri.Appln. No.3802 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3802 OF 2010 Mr. Vijay Kashinath Kumbhar ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Sonia Miskin, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C. Heard the counsel for the accused applicant. It was an application moved through Jail and counsel was appointed to represent the accused applicant. The accused was arrested on 14.3.2006 in Crime No. 18 of 2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 5.5.2007 recorded the following order : "The accused No. 1 Vijay Kashinath Kumbhar is convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 304-B read with 34 2 Cri.Appln. No.3802 of 2010 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) in default to suffer R.I. for six months and for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, R.I. for one year. The sentences mentioned above regarding accused no. 1 shall run consecutively. The set off as per Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure is granted to the accused no. 1. He was in jail since 14.3.2006 to 26.5.2006. The accused no. 4 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC but for the reasons stated in the judgment instead of sentencing accused no. 4, at once to any punishment, he be released on his bond of good behaviouir, as per Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for the period of two years in the amount of Rs.2,000/- and in the mean time, he should keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The accused no. 2, 3 and 5 are acquitted as per Section 235(1) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with 34, and 498-A read with 34 of IPC. Their bail bonds stand cancelled." Reading of the order as a whole, sentence was to run consecutively which comes to 7 years from the period of detention dated 14.3.2006. There is no State appeal for enhancement. Section 304-B deals 3 Cri.Appln. No.3802 of 2010 with dowry death and punishment provided is, for the term which shall not be less than seven years but it may extent to imprisonment for life. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I do not see that the imprisonment that the accused applicant has undergone is sufficient to enlarge him or to change the conviction from consecutive to one as concurrent. Application lacks merit which is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)