( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2007 Shri Govind Chandrappa Gurav .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Amit Sale for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Amit Sale for the applicant. 2. The applicant was convicted under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 in a Summary Criminal Case No.333 of 2004 on the basis of plea of guilt rendered by the applicant before the learned J.M.F.C., Panhala, District Kolhapur. The applicant pleaded for leniency and after hearing the arguments on the question of sentence, the learned J.M.F.C., Panhala sentenced the applicant to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to suffer further simple imprisonment for five days. Being aggrieved by this order, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2006. The said Appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 21.7.2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Kolhapur. ( 2 ) 3. Learned Advocate Mr.Sale submitted that the applicant was not informed that the applicant had a right to defend the case by engaging an Advocate and that is how the plea recorded by the learned Trial Judge was erroneous and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. This argument of learned Advocate Mr.Sale cannot be accepted because the learned Trial Judge had accepted the plea of the applicant, heard the applicant on the question of sentence and then passed the order. This would clearly mean that the applicant knows his right and what he was pleased to do when he was brought before the Court. At paragraph 4 of the impugned order where there is a specific mention that the applicant before the learned Trial Judge filed an application at Exhibit-3 praying for leniency and stating about his power. This would clearly mean that the applicant was aware of the fact that his plea of the guilt has been accepted and that he is seeking leniency from the Court. With these facts, the question whether the applicant was aware of his right as regards to defend the case do not arise because the applicant had filed an application at Exhibit-3 claiming leniency clearly goes to show that he knew that he had a right to defend the trial and by praying leniency he had given up his right to defend the trial. In my view, both, the learned Trial Judge as well the learned Ad-hoc ( 3 ) Additional Sessions Judge acted in a proper manner and there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. 4. In view of the above, no interference is required in the impugned order. The application is accordingly rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)