( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra through PSO, Loha P.S. APPELLANT VERSUS Manohar Manika Gadekar, R/o Dhavari, Tq. Loha. RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, APP for the appellant/State. None. for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th October, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Kandhar in Summary Criminal Case No. 604/1998. By the impugned judgement, the respondent was convicted, by accepting his plea of guilt, for offence punishable under section 66 read with section 192 and under section 130 read with section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default ( 2 ) to suffer simple imprisonment for sixty (60) days. 2. The main contention of the appellant (State) is that the respondent should have been awarded sentence of fine upto Rs. 5000/- and there is no reason recorded to take a lenient view. 3. The respondent was found transporting 19 passengers in the motor vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No. MH-22/B-7529 on 22nd June, 1998. It was found that he had no permit to engage himself in transportation of passengers. 4. The respondent is driver of the jeep vehicle. He is not the registered owner thereof as it appears from the averments in the report and the particulars explained to him while recording the plea. 5. Heard learned A.P.P. None appears for the respondent. 6. The learned Magistrate convicted the respondent ( 3 ) on his own admission of the guilt. It appears that considering the young age of the respondent and the fact that he is only a driver, some leniency is shown to him. It is true, no doubt, that the learned Magistrate ought to have recorded reasons while awarding lesser sentence. The absence of such reasons by itself would not be sufficient to upset the impugned judgement after such along drawn period of about ten (10) years. The appeal is preferred against the impugned judgement for trivial reasons. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapl28-99