1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 190 OF 2009 Babarao Yeshwant Rele v. The State of Mah. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None present for the applicant. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.P.P. for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 5 th APRIL, _2010. Counsel for the applicant absent. This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 435 of Indian Penal Code by which the trial Court had sentenced the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days, modified by the appellate court in appeal by setting aside the sentence by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and directing the applicant to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant under 2 Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Offence under Section 435 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for seven years and with fine and looking to the fact that heap of maize crop worth Rs.12,000/- was burnt by the applicant, the applicant was found guilty by the courts below for setting on fire 900 bundles of maize crops kept by the complainant in his field in the year 2005. Stray portion from the said heap during the process of piling went to the field of the accused/applicant who asked the complainant to remove the same from his field immediately. The complainant promised him to remove the same. The applicant had hardly any patience, though the complainant was a neighbouring cultivator and closely related to the applicant. In the evening he set on fire the entire heap of maize. The applicant was working as a Gazetted Officer in Design Unit in the office of Executive Engineer, Amravati, in Pintakali Project. Thus the applicant who is holding a post of responsibility caused mischief by fire and thus committed offence under Section 435 of Indian Penal Code. 3. This offence is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court. No justification was at all tendered by the applicant for his act of setting on fire the maize crops collected by the complainant in his field after putting his hard work. The courts below have recorded findings of facts which I have checked up and I find that the courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence tendered by the prosecution and even the 3 ground about delay in filing the first information report has been taken care of. The applicant and the complainant being close relatives, settlement to the loss caused to the complainant was attempted to be worked out but due to the adamant attitude of the applicant the same could not be finalized. The appellate court however interfered with the sentence and though the offence was very serious and punishable with sentence of 7 years and being not compoundable, the appellate court released the applicant by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and ordered him to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In this background, this Court thought it fit to record the order dated 19.1.2010 since the learned counsel for the applicant undertook to deposit Rs.20,000/- in this Court. After that order, on 16.2.2010 request was made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor to file appeal for enhancement of sentence looking to the serious nature of the offence. Thereafter the applicant took time on 22.2.2010, 2.3.2010, 17.3.2010 and 31.3.2010 but did not deposit the said amount. The counsel for the applicant consistently remained absent and even today he is absent. It clearly appears that the applicant who is a Gazetted Government Officer has no regard for the rule of law. The impugned judgment of conviction by both the courts below is therefore confirmed. 4. Insofar as the sentence awarded by the appellate court is concerned, subject to the State appeal which is before me today with the application for 4 condonation of delay, this criminal revision is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the trial Court within four weeks from today and the said amount of costs shall be paid to the complainant along with the compensation of Rs.5,000/- as ordered by the appellate court. The trial Court shall recover the amounts aforesaid by applying procedure for recovery of fine. JUDGE /TA/