1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2011 (Dilip Mahadeo Hande and another .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Parag Ukey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri C.N. Adgokar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 23RD MARCH, 2011. Heard. Notice. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the respondent/State. Heard finally. By way of present revision, the applicants are challenging the order dated 21st March, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The applicants, vide order dated 20th January, 2009, came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that an application was moved by the applicants for suspension of sentence. He further submits that the applicants are the sole bread earners of their respective families. He submits that the applicants have raised grounds in their appeal and have sufficient scope of getting succeeded in their appeal. Learned Counsel further submits that though it is not in dispute that the appeal was filed on 09.03.2009, an application for suspension of sentence was also filed along with the appeal. He further submits that a very harsh view is taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Counsel further submits that the applicants on their own have approached the Court for seeking suspension of sentence and they have not misused any liberty granted to them. He further submits that the observation of the learned Additional 2 Sessions Judge that the applicants were not diligent is not true for the reason that the applicants were prosecuting their case, but, due to communication gap between the applicants and their advocate they were not informed about the intervening dates and they were unable to attend on those dates. Learned Counsel further submits that the applicants are the poor agriculturists and they are falsely involved in the crime. He further submits that the appeal may not come up for hearing in view of the pendency of other appeals within a reasonable period and if no indulgence is shown by this Court, the whole purpose of filing of appeal would be frustrated. He further submits that in view of the young age of the applicants, they being the sole bread earners of their families and as they are facing financial crisis, leniency be shown to them. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposes the revision and supports the impugned order. Perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Though it is not in dispute that there was some delay caused in filing the appeal, in my opinion, looking to the age of the applicants as well as the conviction awarded to them is of two months and in view of the fact that the appeal will take a reasonable time for final disposal as well as there is nothing on record to show that the applicants have misused the liberty granted to them, this is a fit case to show indulgence. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 21st March, 2011 is set aside. The sentence awarded is suspended. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) each with one or two sureties in the like amount till final disposal of the appeal which is pending before the appellate Court. Steno copy of this order duly authenticated be furnished to the learned Counsel for the applicants on payment of usual charges. JUDGE *rrg.