1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REV. APPLICATION NO. 326 OF 2009 Vijayandra s/o Pruthviraj Lunawat, Aged 72 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Jalna Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Applicant and his Advocate are absent Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 6th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the applicant had committed offence punishable under Section 32B of the Bombay Money Lending Act. The facts leading to the prosecution of the applicant are as under : 2. On 15th June, 2006, the complainant found the applicant doing money lending business without permission and he was also found in possession of documents and articles showing that he was doing money lending business without licence, and therefore, he was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 5, 32 (b), 34, 35 (A) of the Bombay Money Lending Act. 3. The complaint was lodged on 10th September, 2007. In support of the case of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined. One of them was Sanjay Bhalerao, who was the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, on whose complaint the crime was registered. 2 The learned Magistrate having regard to the evidence that has come record came to a conclusion that the acts proved against the applicants were in violation of Section 5 and 32 (B) of the Act, and so the applicant was liable to be convicted under Section 34 of the Act. He, therefore, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 34 read with Sections 5 and 32 (B) of the Act, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause. 4. The applicant preferred an appeal against this Judgment and order before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the charge in respect of violation of Section 5 of the Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant carried on business of money lending without obtaining a licence. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that in absence of money lending licence, there could not be violation of provisions of Section 5 and prohibits from carrying on business of money lending outside the area for which he has obtained a licence. However, the learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the evidence and record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has amply proved that the accused was conducting business of money lending without holding a valid lience. For coming to this conclusion, the learned Judge has given cogent reasons. The learned Judge then pointed out that such an act would amount to violation of provisions of Section 32 (B) (b) of the Act. Having regard to such violation, which is made punishable under Section 34 of the Act, the learned Judge held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 32 (B) read with Section 34 of the Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of sentence having regard to the old age of the applicant. She awarded sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment in place of one year to 3 the applicant and reduced even the fine amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1500/-. The default clause was also modified accordingly. Although apparently there is nothing illegal or incorrect about the quantum of sentence awarded to the applicant. When I saw the applicant in my Court today, I realized that even substantive sentence of one month duration would be too heavy and intolerable for him. He looks old, frail and ailing. I am told that he is suffering from lumber spinal disorder and is unable to walk without support of a cane. Having regard to the present health condition of the applicant, I think, his substantive sentence can be further reduced to the duration he has already undergone. I am told that he was in custody for seven days prior to his bail or custody as per the order dated 4th December, 2009. The revision thus would succeed partly. The substantive sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period for which he has already undergone. Rest of the order shall remain intact. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/cra/326/09/6910/ok