1 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.30 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2010 Bojendranath Narayan Bala ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Suryanshi for the accused/applicant and learned A.P.P. 2. Pursuant to order of this court dated 20.8.2011, the investigator has tendered report by recording statement of Bojendranath Narayan Bala (Applicant) as to his residence and present vocation. The photostat copies of the tax receipts issued by Gram Panchayat Boisar in the name of Sandhya Jiledar Varma is produced. The statement of Naresh Shet, Jiledar Varma are recorded. Both the persons inform that the accused applicant is supervisor on the labours at the construction site and he has been so working since the year 2006 with said Naresh Sheth. 2 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.30 of 2010 3. The accused/applicant was prosecuted for offence under section 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner's Act, 1961 and directed to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months and further to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month by the learned J.M.F.C. II Court, Palghar in Regular Criminal Case No. 89 of 2005. The order was carried by the accused/applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal and directed the applicant to undergo sentence awarded by the learned J.M.F.C. II court, Palghar. These orders are questioned by the accused/applicant. 4. The witnesses had indeed raided the dispensary operated by the accused/applicant which has been so stated by PW No. 1 Atmaram Bhiva Khatake about the affairs and the discreet information received about the acts of conducting and running medial practice. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused applicant was at the most merely sitting in the said dispensary and it can not be branded that he was treating any patient at the material time. 5. On the other hand, the investigator and the witnesses found the 3 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.30 of 2010 accused/applicant was sitting behind the table with medical equipments necessarily required for examination of the patients including syringe, needles etc. The accused applicant in the presence of pancha witnesses could not justify as to how he was carrying medical profession in the said premises. 6. The doubt expressed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the fact situation is beyond comprehension. The panch witnesses and the head constable have no grudge or animus to grind against the accused applicant. Taking survey of the above facts, I find that the conviction recorded against the accused applicant does not call for any interference. 7. The accused/applicant at the material time was 30 years of age. He has no criminal record to his discredit. He is engaged now as Supervisor for the area as stated hereinabove by the investigator. The Taluka Probation Officer has not recorded any adverse remark against the accused/applicant. Considering the above facts of the matter, instead of directing the accused applicant to undergo sentence, as recorded by both the courts, the following order is passed : 8. The conviction of accused/applicant in R.C.C. No. 89 of 2005 4 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.30 of 2010 recorded by the JMFC II Palghar is confirmed. However, instead of undergoing sentence as was awarded by the learned Judge the accused applicant is directed to be released on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned J.MF.C. II Court, Palghar in the said R.C.C. NO. 89 of 2005. The bond to remain in force for the period of two years. During this period if the accused/applicant if found to have indulged in identical activity, the bond shall stand forfeited and the accused/applicant will have to undergo the sentence as was directed in R.C.C. No. 85 of 2005. With the above observations, the revision is partly allowed in above terms. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)