1 Cri.Appl.No.2621 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2621 OF 2010 Ashok Zinga Patil, Age-36 years, Occu-Service (Terminated) R/o.Gat No.448/2, Plot No.5, Mohannagar, Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 01/04/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 The applicant, who stands convicted in RCC No.118/2006 by J.M.F.C. Parola alongwith 6 others, vide his judgment and order dated 14/08/2008 for the offence punishable u/s. 465, 471 r/w. 34 of The IPC, and was sentenced to suffer 18 months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.500/- for the first offence and was sentenced to suffer further RI for one year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.500/- for the second offence, has filed the Criminal Appeal No.70/08 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, wherein at Exh.18, he had prayed for suspension of the conviction and sentence, which application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Cri.Appl.No.2621 of 2010 hence approached this Court u/s. 482 r/w. 389 of The Cr.P.C. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted himself on 2 points only, first is that the conviction recorded against the applicant herein is for 1 ½ years and 1 year respectively and the order of sentence was ordered to run con-currently. It is the second point that on filing of the criminal appeal No.70/2008, immediately he was released on bail as during pendancy of trial, he was on bail. At the same time, he has not prayed for suspension of order of conviction and sentence, which application was moved later on, but was rejected by the Lower Court. Out attention is also drawn that original accused no.4, the Section Officer, who was tried and convicted alongwith the applicant was also sentenced to suffer the same sentence and his conviction and sentence was suspended by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 547/2008, and hence on the ground of parity, the conviction and sentence of this applicant also required to be suspended. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel took us through the order impugned and the observations of the learned Appellate Court, particularly in para no.6 wherein it is observed that “the Hon’ble High Court has decided the case of said Arun Patil (appellant/original accused no.4 in Criminal Appeal No. 3 Cri.Appl.No.2621 of 2010 59/2008) on its own merits. As against this, the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of original accused no.4.” It is to be noted that the conviction is recorded by the Court below for an offence punishable u/s. 465, 471 r/w. 34 of The IPC. Perusal of the judgment impugned in the criminal appeal so also the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.547/2008 do not indicate that the merits of the case are different as against the present applicant and as against the original accused no.4 whose conviction was suspended during the pendancy of the criminal appeal by the order in Criminal Writ Petition No.547/2008. On the ground of parity also, the conviction and sentence impugned in Criminal Appeal No.70/2008 required to be suspended. In view of this, for the observations in Criminal Writ Petition No.547/2008 so also the observations of the Trial Court while recording the conviction and sentence against the present applicant is at par. In view of this, I inclined to allow the application as prayed in terms of prayer clause B & C. 5. Rule made absolute as indicated above. Application stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.appl.2621-10