FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.610 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2009 [ V/S.] _____________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram, appearances, Court s orders : ’ or directions and Registrar s’ : Court s or Judge s orders ’ ’ orders : _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr.Rahul Kate for applicant Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, A.P.P. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 8th JANUARY, 2010. PC :- 1. Heard. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Waives service. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This revision application is directed against the order of the lower appellate court dated 1st October 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2006. The criminal appeal was directed against the judgement and order dated 29th September 2006 passed in Criminal case No. 804 of 1998. 3. The learned JMFC Vai convicted present applicant for the offence punishable under section 279 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 and in default R.I. For one month. 4. The only submission that was made before the lower appellate court and reiterated before me is that the incident is of 23rd November 1998 and the judgement of the trial court of conviction and sentence is dated 29th September 2006. The applicant is involved only in this incident. There are no other incidents or accident in his otherwise meritorious service of last several decades. The applicant accused is aged 54 years and, therefore, lenient view may be taken insofar as punishment is concerned and it be reduced accordingly. 5. Learned A.P.P., has invited my attention to para 8 of the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Lower appellate Court and contended that the discretion is properly exercised and, therefore, there is no need to show any further leniency. 6. Having perused the impugned orders, it is clear that it is not necessary to discuss any other aspects as the only argument before me is with regard to the sentence. The submission is that this Court should show leniency in sentence. 7. It has come on record that this is not a case of drunken driving. The incident is of 1998 and the sentence was rendered after nearly a period of eight years from the incident. Further, from the date of the incident till date, there is no other incident involving present applicant. The applicant is aged 54 years and is working with a private bus operator. In such circumstances and when the applicant has undergone a sentence of one month out of three months, the sentence is reduced to the period undergone already. In other words, it is reduced from 3 months to one month. In these circumstances and in the facts peculiar to this case, revision application is allowed. The order of the lower appellate court stands modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute in these terms. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)