1 REVN.: 5 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2010 Khalil Mohammed Amin Shaikh .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Pravin D. Patel, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State-respondent no.1. Ms. Seema Rawale i/by Mrs. V.K. Khata for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st August, 2011 P.C. 1. Admit. 2. By consent, the revision application is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. The applicant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 52 read with 43 of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default, he is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2 REVN.: 5 of 2010 4. The brief facts of the prosecution are that in the month of September 2003, Sub Engineer, Mr. Shamshad Ali Shaikh, while taking round in M-East Ward, Shivaji Nagar, Govandi noticed unauthorised construction at Flat No.35/B, Room No.1. The co- accused of the applicant, the contractor, who carried out the work of construction was present at the spot. The Sub Engineer enquired him about the permission for construction and name of the owner of the premises. The contractor disclosed the name of the applicant. Then he took measurement of the construction and prepared an inspection report along with rough sketch and reported the incident to his superiors. About a year thereafter, i.e. on 20th September 2003, the Police visited the construction site and drew panchanama. The applicant was arrested by the Police on 27th September 2003 and was released on bail. The charges against the applicant were framed. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the respondent no.2-Municipal Corporation led evidence and the applicant came to be convicted and sentenced to the imprisonment as stated. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 3 REVN.: 5 of 2010 applicant has already undergone sentence for a period of 39 days and that he has also deposited the fine amount. He requests that the sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The learned counsel submits that the premises in question is situate in a slum area, where hardly anybody applies for permission for carrying out construction. Even for transfer of properties, the procedure prescribed by law is never followed. It appears that the applicant is no more residing in the premises in question. Taking an overall view of the matter, considering the nature of the offence, the status of the applicant, who is an embroidery worker, in my opinion the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would be sufficient and reasonable. Hence, the revision application is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant is reduced from simple imprisonment of six months to simple imprisonment of 39 days, which has already been undergone by him. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)