1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2008 Uddhav Tatyarao Tekade, aged 45 years, r/o Khurampur, Tq. Lonar, District Buldana. … APPLICANT. - Versus - The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Shegaon, District Buldana. …. Mr. P.B. Patil Advocate for the Applicant.Petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, APP, for the respondent. …. CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 23 rd FEBRUARy,_2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2000 confirming the judgment and order dated 5.6.2000 passed by J.M.F.C. Shegaon, in Regular Criminal Case No. 141/90, convicting the revision- applicant for the offence punishable under Section 170 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, the present revision application has been filed. 2 2. In support of the revision-application, Mr.Patil learned counsel for the revision-applicant, argued that no offence under Section 170 of Indian Penal Code was at all proved by the prosecution, inasmuch as the prosecution failed to prove that the revision-applicant had impersonated any particular officer of the Government while demanding Rs.500/- from the Fair Price Shop. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the revision-applicant could not have been said to have been guilty of impersonation. He then argued that the revision-applicant resides at a distance of 100 kms. and it is wholly improper to believe that a person residing at a distance of 100 kms. would travel for demanding Rs.500/- by impersonation. However, all these things have been ignored by the courts below and thus they landed in error in convicting the revision- applicant. In the alternative, Mr.Patil submitted that the revision-applicant has already undergone sentence of eight days and there is no record of revision-applicant indulging in similar or any other criminal activity. He is dependent on his agricultural land consisting of three acres with five members of his family and this Court may show leniency while awarding the sentence. 3. Per contra, Mrs.Wandile, learned APP., opposed both the prayers made by learned counsel for the applicant, namely for acquittal and for reduction of sentence; and 3 supported the impugned judgments and orders. She further argued that there is ample evidence on record which has not been shaken, by which guilt under Section 170 of Indian Penal Code stood proved beyond reasonable doubt and this Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot not re- appreciate the evidence, as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the revision-applicant. 4. As regards the reduction in sentence, Mrs.Wandile urged this Court not to reduce the sentence since this is a serious offence and such offences are on increase. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision-application. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the rival parties, I have gone through the evidence of the complainant Wasudeo (P.W.1), who complained that the revision-applicant had come to him and impersonated that he is the Supply Inspector and wanted to see the documents. After some time he demanded Rs.500/- posing himself as a public servant and in addition had shown identity card, which was obviously fake. Complainant identified the revision-applicant as the same person who had come to him and impersonated. This evidence has not been challenged or shaken in the cross-examination and, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of Mr.Patil on the question of identity as the same person. 6. Another submission as regards the usual place of 4 residence of the revision-applicant hardly impresses me since it is not necessary that he cannot travel to demand Rs.500/- upon impersonation. Without discussing anything further, I do not find any error in the matter of conviction recorded by the courts below. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the courts below. 7. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, I find that no criminal antecedents or similar record of commission of offence by the applicant has been pointed out to me. The revision-applicant has already undergone eight days' sentence. He is an agriculturist with three acres of land having big family to support. The revision-applicant has undertaken not to repeat such type of offence in future, and therefore, I am of the view that instead of pushing him in jail again, a chance to improve should be given to him. Hence, I am inclined to reduce the sentence to that of fine only, since Section 170 of Indian Penal Code provides punishment with imprisonment, or fine, or with both. In that view of the matter, I make the following order. 8. Criminal Revision No.61 of 2008 is partly allowed. The judgments and orders recorded by the courts below are modified and the revision-applicant is sentenced with fine only. The revision-applicant shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) within three months in the 5 trial Court, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The orders sentencing the applicant to undergo jail sentence are set aside. JUDGE