1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 70 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2010 Jayprakash Ankush Garud. ..Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.S.J.Shelke for Applicant. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. By consent, taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2009, thereby partly allowing the Appeal filed by the present Appellant and upholding the conviction of the present Appellant/Applicant for an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.427 of the I.P.C. but however, reducing the sentence to 2 suffer S.I. For a period of 2 months instead of 3 months. 3. Though the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court for three months was reduced to two months, no reason was given either by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, as to why benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. should not be given in the facts of the present case. 4. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the incident occurred out of heat generated at the spot of the incident as there was scuffle between the Accused persons and the complainant and others. From the material on record it cannot be said that the prosecution has established that there is intention of accused to commit said offence. It can be seen from the material on record that the Applicant is not habitual offender. It is also not the prosecution case that the Applicant had been convicted earlier at any point of time. The incident had occurred on 29th August, 1996 i.e. almost before a period of 14 years. I am therefore, of the view that Learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court instead of directing the Applicant to undergo sentence, ought to have given benefit of provision of Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the Applicant. 3 5. In the circumstances, therefore, while upholding the order of conviction, it is directed that instead of sentencing the applicant to undergo imprisonment, he shall execute bond before the learned Trial Court that he shall keep good behaviour and peace for a period of one year. It is therefore directed that on the execution of the bond and on Applicant complying the conditions stated in the said bond, order of sentence shall stand set aside. It is however, made clear that in case, the Applicant did not comply with the conditions stated in the bond, he has to undergo sentence as awarded by the Appellate Court. Revision Application is therefore, disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of the disposal of the main application, nothing survives in the Application for bail. The same is disposed of accordingly. (B.R.GAVAI,J)