1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.301 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.174 OF 2010 Sardar Miya Isaq Patel ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Rahul S. Kate, adv. For the Applicant/Appellant. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Admit. 2 With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, revision application is taken up immediately for final hearing and disposal.To state in brief, revision applicant, who was accused no.2, was a candidate for the S.S.C. examination to be held in March, 1990. His centre was Tilak High school, Karad. On 2.4.1990 he was to appear for the examination of Hindi subject. When the examination was going on and the students were writing the papers, the supervisor found that the accused no.1 Maruti Dinkar Suryavanshi was actually writing the said answer sheet of Hindi paper in place of accused no.2 Sardar Miya. During the detailed enquiry, it was revealed that on the admission card 2 these two students had replaced photograph of Maruti in place of Sardar Miya. Report was lodged with the police and after investigation chargesheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 419 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. with Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University Board and Other Specified Examinations Act, 1982 ('Malpractices Act' in brief). Accused no.1 Maruti was absconding and his case was separated. Trial in Regular Criminal Case No.201/90 continued only as against the accused no.2. He denied that he had any common intention in committing the offence and that with his consent, said accused no.1 Maruti had appeared in his place. After trial accused no.2 was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 468, 419 r/w Section 7 of the Malpractices Act. For the offence punishable under Section 468, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, for the offence punishable under Section 419, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Malpractices Act, he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. All the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Accused no.2 preferred criminal appeal no. 3/04. Appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad on 28.5.2010. Against the said conviction and sentence, 3 original accused no.2 has preferred the present revision application. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the concurrent findings of the facts by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the revision applicant fairly conceded that he would not press the revision application on the merits of the case. However, he contended that taking into consideration nature of the offence, period which has passed after the commission of the alleged offence and the present age of the revision applicant, no purpose will be served by sending him to the jail. He prayed that his sentence may be suitable modified. The learned APP has no objection and she left the question of sentence to the discretion of the Court. 4 The offence was committed in April, 1990. Thus, period of more than 20 years has passed. It appears that the accused was then about 23 years and now he is a middle aged person about 42-43 years. The person, who had actually appeared for the examination on his behalf, had absconded and he could not be put to the trial. The learned counsel for the revision applicant makes a statement that the applicant has surrendered to custody on 28.5.2010 after his appeal was dismissed but the learned counsel is not aware if the applicant was in custody during the investigation or immediately after his conviction by the trial 4 Court. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the interest of justice will be served if the accused is required to pay enhanced fine amount and to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as already undergone. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, revision application is allowed only in respect of sentence and the impugned order passed by the trial Court awarding sentence stands modified as follows: i Revision Applicant/Accused No.2 Sardar Miya Isaq Patel is sentenced to imprisonment as already undergone and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 419 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. In default to pay fine amount on each count, he shall undergo S.I. for three months. He is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University Board and Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 and in case of failure to pay fine amount, he shall undergo S.I. for one month. Fine amount is allowed to be deposited within one week from this date before the trial Court. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 5 7 As Revision Application itself is finally disposed off, Criminal Application No.174/2010 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)