1 Criminal W.P. No.1049 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1049 OF 2010 Sanjay Suryabhan Chate PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.P.S.Koshti, learned counsel for the petitioner.(Appointed) Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 06/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as a Criminal Writ Petition. We accordingly appoint Mr.P.S.Koshti as a learned counsel to represent the petitioner. The learned counsel appointed for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. states that in the light of the relief, which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, it is not necessary to adjourn the matter. Heard respective counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this petition contends that the Ad-hoc Sessions Court at Nanded had sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 2 Criminal W.P. No.1049 of 2010 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of 2 years under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in this Court as well as before the Supreme Court came to be dismissed thus confirming the conviction and sentence. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that he is unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and prays for remitting the sentence of payment of fine. The petitioner also contends that he has aged parents, a wife and minor children to support and therefore is unable to pay. 3. Learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner has urged that this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction u/s. 389 of The Cr.P.C. can remit the sentence of fine. The learned A.P.P. has very rightly pointed out that Section 389 of The Cr.P.C. can not arise at this stage as the appeal filed by the petitioner in this Court has been dismissed. Moreover, section 389 of The Cr.P.C. does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to remit the amount of fine. In any event, the judgment has attained finality and by this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a review of the said judgment, imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- According to us, in the light of Section 262 of The Cr.P.C., there can not be any review in respect of the judgment rendered in a criminal trial. In any event, the aforesaid petition, therefore, according to us is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 3 Criminal W.P. No.1049 of 2010 4. We accordingly dismiss this petition with no order as to costs. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/DEC. 2010/cri.w.p.1049-10