1 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.46 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2011 Sanjay S/o.Vasant Wani, Age-38 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Saraf Bazar, Amalner, Ta.Amalner, Dist.Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Dr.Hedgewar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Opp. Urban Bank, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, Through, Secretary, Shri.Vasant Marathe. RESPONDENTS Mr.K.C.Sant, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.R.S.Shinde, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present criminal revision application, the applicant has questioned the correctness order of conviction and sentence passed in RCC No.149/1998, by learned J.M.F.C. Amalner, vide judgment 2 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.46 of 2011 and order dated 22/10/2007 for the offence punishable u/s. 420 and 468 of The IPC, which was confirmed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 09/03/2011, in Cri.Appeal No.59/2007. 3. Today, by way of separate order, Cri.Appl.No.1752 of 2011 is allowed. In the said application, the applicant and respondents have prayed this Court that they may be allowed to compound the offence. In view of amendment to Section 320(2) of The Cr.P.C., w.e.f. 31/12/2009, section 420 of The IPC is made compoundable with permission of the Court. If the original complainant is ready to compound the offence, and such permission is granted to compound the offence. Out of the 2 offences, for which the applicant is convicted, one is punishable u/s. 420 of The IPC, which is now compoundable in view of amendment to section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., the conviction and sentence of applicant to suffer RI for 6 months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, is accordingly quashed and set aside. 4. Now the question remains, the conviction u/s. 468 of The IPC is not compoundable u/s. 320(1) or u/s. 320(2) of The Cr.P.C. At this juncture, it is urged across the bar on behalf of learned counsel for applicant, relying on the judgment in the matter of Madan Suleman Gaure versus State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cri.L.J. 1419, that if the main offence is compromised between the parties, then in the subsequent offences, which are not compoundable within the 3 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.46 of 2011 purview of the provisions under the Cr.P.C., then in the discretion of the Court, the convict to be released on conviction of the sentence already he had undergone and on payment of fine. It is informed across the bar that during the pendancy of trial, so also during the pendancy of criminal appeal, the revision applicant was on bail. But he surrendered on 19/03/2011 after Criminal Appeal No.59/2007 was dismissed by way of order dated 09/03/2011 and was released on bail on 22/03/2011 in view of order of bail passed by this Court. It is urged on behalf of learned counsel for respondent no.2, so also learned A.P.P. for State, that in view of the legal position, as the parties are allowed to compromise the main offence, so far as subsequent offence is concerned, the conviction to be maintained and the sentence to be reduced to the period, the convict has already undergone and on payment of fine. It is informed that the applicant has paid fine amount in the Lower Court. In view of this, conviction of the applicant u/s. 468 of The IPC, is maintained, but considering the peculiar circumstances, his sentence is reduced to the period, he has already undergone and the fine in the sum of Rs.500/-, which he has already paid. 5. In view of this, Rule thus made absolute as stated above. Revision application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.rev.46-11