1 REVN 547.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 547 OF 2010 Mr. Dadaram Ramchandra Khomane. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Ms. Revati Mohite-Dera for the Applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 23rd AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. The Accused/Applicant questions conviction recorded in Appeal No.27 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by order dated 16th November 2010 directing the Accused/Applicant No.1 Dadaram to face conviction for an offence punishable under Section 448 of I.P.C. 3. The learned Sessions Judge instead of sentencing the Accused/Applicant to the Jail or inflicting to the sentence, extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and he was directed to execute a bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety for a period of one year from 16th November 2010. 2 REVN 547.10.sxw 4. The learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant submits that the reasons assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in acquitting Accused by the Judgment dated 30.04.2008 for the sound foundation and need not have been disturbed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 5. The learned Counsel also submits that when there was a prosecution in terms of Section 452, 506 of I.P.C. the learned Judge could not have convicted for an offence under Section 448 of I.P.C. 6. Reading the Judgment of the learned J.M.F.C. as also the Appellate Court, it is explicit that evidence of witnesses is properly scanned by the Appellate Court. The learned J.M.F.C. branded the witnesses to be interested. However, considering the fact situation of meeting of the education institution it was in close corners, the employees were bound to remain present, and attend the events. The minor omissions were magnified by the learned J.M.F.C. Due care is taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to scan and bring on record the correct position based on evidence by its true assessment. The undue importance that has been extended by the learned J.M.F.C. to the omissions or the so called contradiction basically does not go the heart and root of the matter and does not disturb the version of the witnesses against the Accused/Applicant. 7. Taking survey of above aspect, I find that the conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge for an offence 3 REVN 547.10.sxw under Section 448 of I.P.C. does not call for any interference. 8. The learned Counsel also submitted, the effect of bond in terms of Section 4 in Probation of Offenders Act would impade like prospects of the Accused/Applicant. 9. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not brand a disqualification to any such person attached with conviction for an offence under Penal Code and particularly, in terms of Section 448 of I.P.C. 10. The Revision lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)