1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANTABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2000 1. Venkat Govind Mane (Ujalambe), age 33 yrs, occ. agril, r/o Sastur, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Laxmibai w/o Venkat Mane (ujalambe) age 28 yrs, occ. Household, r/o as above. Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra, copy served on APP High Court Bench at Aurangabad. Respondents Shri B.R. Sontake Patil, advocate for applicants. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Conviction recorded for an offence u/s 353, 354 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code by the Ld. JMFC on 07.11.1997 Omerga was challenged in criminal appeal No.62/1997 where the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the same for an offence u/s 353 of I.P.C. The said order of conviction is challenge in the present revision. 2. By order dated 03.09.2009 rule was issued and bail already granted to the accused to continue till disposal of the revision. 2 3. The short question that has been raised by Mr. Patil is the purported raid arranged by the Police staff which include female complainant was not to the house of father of the accused. The accused had nothing to do with the controversies of money lending business. There was no warrant with the police to take search of the house/shade of the premises of accused/applicant and consequently he was justified by complying reasonable force in entering of the police officer in his house and particularly ladies in his house. It is brought on record, at the material time accused was not in his premises/shade but he came later when the incident had taken place and he questioned to the police officer. These aspects needs consideration which are absolutely lost by both the Courts. 4. The accused was not to face search warrant and any entry by the police and consequently the strain by wife or female members of the house of the accused was not illegal. No offence u/s 353 of IPC is emerging. Conviction recorded is apparently based on erroneous facts and not properly dealt with the factual matrix about the ownership of the shade as to whether accused was residing there or not ? 5. Consequently criminal revision allowed. Rule made absolute. Conviction recorded by the Ld. JMFC on 07.11.1997 and confirmed by Additional Sessions judge, Osmanabad dated 20.01.2000 is set aside. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ) **** aaa/15.00