.(1). IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.444 OF 1992 Shri Ramesh @ Ramlya Bapu Thakur, aged about 23 years, residing at Parsiwadi, Parsi Chawl, N.M.Joshi Marg, Bombay - 400 011. ..Appellant. -Versus- The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Through this appeal, the appellant-orig.accused No.1 has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.7.1992 passed by the learned Judge, Designated Court in TADA Special Case No.3 of 1990. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge convicted the appellant-orig.accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. .(2). 2. The prosecution case is that the applicant was found in possession of a revolver. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Judge convicted the appellant as stated in para-1 above. However, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment and/or fine, he released the appellant -accused on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his entering into a bond for a period of one year in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount. To appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period if he commits breach of the bond i.e. if he commits any offence and offence under the Arms Act or concerning possession of any weapon which may be also punishable under the Bombay Police Act. In the meantime he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. He shall not keep company with anti-social elements and he shall be under supervision of the District Probation Officer for the said period and shall report to the District Probation Officer once in 3 months. .(3). The trial Court further directed that the accused Ramesh @ Ramlya Bapu Thakur shall be released forthwith on his executing his personal bond as required under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. I have heard Mr.Naik the learned Advocate for the appellant-orig.accused No.1 and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge as well as the record pertaining to the present case. 4. Mr.Naik the learned Advocate for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant who is present in Court, stated that as the applicant has not been sentenced to any actual imprisonment or fine and the bond period is over, today the appellant does not wish to challenge the impugned judgment and order and he seeks leave to withdraw the present appeal. It is seen that no imprisonment or fine was imposed on the appellant, but, he has been released only on bond. The period of the bond of one year is long over. There was no breach on the part of the appellant .(4). in respect of the said bond. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, the following order is passed : ORDER The judgment and order dated 24.7.1992 passed by the learned Judge, Designated Court in TADA Special Case No.3 of 1990 in respect of the appellant is confirmed. Criminal Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)