..(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 APPEAL NO.179 OF 2008 Munna Khalid Ishtiyak Shaikh. ..Appellant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The appellant-orig.accused No.1 has preferred this appeal through jail. There is delay in filing the said appeal. No separate application has been filed for condonation of delay. However, looking to the fact that the appeal has been filed through jail and other facts and circumstances of this case, the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be admitted. 2. By judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, ..(2).. Greater Mumbai convicted the appellant-orig.accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 135, 138 of the Electricity Act and under Section 379 of IPC in Electric Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2006 along with 9(a) of 2006. For the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act the appellant has been sentenced to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default SI for three months. For the offence under Section 138 of the Electricity Act the appellant has been sentenced to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default SI for three months. For the offence under Section 379 IPC the appellant has been sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default SI for two months. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The submission of the appellant is that he would complete the substantive period of imprisonment on 11.11.2007. The appellant has stated that he hails from a very poor financial background and he and his family cannot afford to pay the fine amount of Rs.13,000/- as directed by ..(3).. the trial Court. Hence the only prayer of the appellant is that the fine amount may be reduced. 4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to reduce the fine amount. In view of the prayer made by the appellant, the conviction and substantive sentences of imprisonment under Sections 135, 138 of Electricity Act and under Section 379 of IPC are maintained. However, the fine amount under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.1000/- and the in default sentence is reduced to SI for two months. The fine amount under Section 138 of the Electricity Act is reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.1000/- and the in default sentence is reduced to SI for two months. The fine amount under Section 379 IPC is reduced from Rs.3000/- to Rs.1000/- and the in default sentence is reduced to SI for one month. 5. Appeal is allowed accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)