..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1093 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1118 OF 2006 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1118 OF 2006 1.Raju Arjunbhai Karangija, & 2.Ajay Jagannath Bhadane. ..Applicants/ Appellants. [orig.accused-1&2] Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mrs.Nasreen Ayubi, Adv. appointed for the Applicants/Appellants. Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appointed for the applicants/appellants-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2 have been convicted in Sessions Case No.509 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by judgment and order dated 29.6.2006. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions ..(2).. Judge convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 392 r.w. 34 IPC and 397 r.w. 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 392 r.w. 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, RI for one month each. For the offence under Section 397 r.w. 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default, RI for two months each. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The applicants-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2 have also been convicted in Sessions Case No.508 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by judgment and order dated 29.6.2006. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 392 r.w. 34 IPC and 397 r.w. 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 392 r.w. 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- ..(3).. each, in default, RI for one month each. For the offence under Section 397 r.w. 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default, RI for two months each. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The applicants-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1118 of 2006 in respect of the above convictions in both the Sessions Cases. The said appeal has been preferred through jail. 5. The present application has been preferred by the applicants praying therein that the sentences in both the Sessions Cases be made concurrent and the fine amount may be reduced in both the cases. Both the Sessions Cases relate to different incidents which have taken place at different time and different places. The complainants in both the cases are different. In such case, the substantive sentences of imprisonment in both the Sessions Cases cannot be ..(4).. made concurrent in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Aktar Hussain Mohd. Aktar Hussain Mohd. Aktar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and others Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and others Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 2143 in AIR 1988 SC 2143 in AIR 1988 SC 2143 and the observations of this Court in the case of Ramesh Krishna Sawant Ramesh Krishna Sawant Ramesh Krishna Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra Vs. State of Maharashtra Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1994 Mh.LJ, 1994 Mh.LJ, 1994 Mh.LJ, Vol.I, 825. Vol.I, 825. Vol.I, 825. 6. The applicants are not challenging the conviction in both the cases nor the substantive sentences of imprisonment. Their only prayer is that the sentences in both the Sessions Cases be made concurrent and the fine amount may be reduced in both the cases. As observed above, the substantive sentences of imprisonment in both the cases cannot be made concurrent. As far as fine amount in both the cases is concerned, I am inclined to reduce the same. 7. In Sessions Case No.509 of 2005, the fine amount for the offence under Section 392 r.w. 34 IPC is reduced from Rs. 2000/- each to Rs.200/- each; and the fine amount for the offence under ..(5).. Section 397 r.w. 34 IPC, is reduced from Rs.3000/- each to Rs.300/- each. Thus, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment in Sessions Case No.509 of 2005 is maintained. However, the fine amount is reduced as stated above. 8. In Sessions Case No.508 of 2005, the fine amount for the offence under Section 392 r.w. 34 IPC is reduced from Rs. 2000/- each to Rs.200/- each; and the fine amount for the offence under Section 397 r.w. 34 IPC, is reduced from Rs.3000/- each to Rs.300/- each. Thus, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment in Sessions Case No.508 of 2005 is maintained. However, the fine amount is reduced as stated above. It may be stated here that the in default sentences in both the cases remain the same. 9. In the result, both the Application and the Appeal are partly allowed. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)