1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.285 OF 2001 Mrs. Madhavi Arun Sonawane .... Applicant (Ori. accused) Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent (Ori. complainant) Mr. B.G. Tangsali, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 2nd July, 2010 P.C. : 1. The revision applicant, by this Revision Application challenges his conviction by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Ist Court), Thane in Regular Criminal Case No.287 of 1996 and confirmation of conviction by the Thane District Court by dismissing his Appeal No.3 of 1998. The applicant has been convicted under Section 380 I.P.C. for theft from dwelling house and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, she has to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2 She has also been convicted under Section 454 I.P.C. for committing house trespass and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine, she has to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant, Manohar used to reside in Gopalkrishna Apartment, 3rd floor, Vitawa. He had lost one set of keys of his house about 7 months prior to the incident of theft. Since then he had noticed that on various occasions money was found stolen from his house, totalling to Rs.4,000/-. He had therefore asked his neighbour and the watchman to keep a watch on his house. On 3rd February 1996, the applicant opened the house of the complainant with keys. The neighbour of the complainant (P.W. 4) noticing her closed the door from the outside. When the applicant started crying loudly from inside, the neighbour opened the door and the applicant ran away. Later on she was caught by the Police. During the course of the investigation, the Police recovered 3 keys of the house and also Rs.4,000/- from her. 3. There is concurrent finding of the courts below as regards establishment of guilt of the applicant. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below as also the evidence in the matter. Perusal of the evidence on record completely establishes the prosecution case against the applicant. I find no infirmity whatsoever in the two orders. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant then requests that the applicant should be given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He, however, submits that he has not been in touch with the applicant for the last 10 years i.e. since the filing of the revision application in 2001. Considering the facts of the case, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for releasing the applicant on probation of good conduct. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)