3. cri wp 88-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2017
Salim Yakub Kara .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. D.G. Khamkar Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. By Judgment & Order dated 7.6.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai under MCOC Act in MCOC Special Case No. 3 of 1999, the petitioner - accused No. 3 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 3(2) r/w S. 2(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:19:42 :::
3. cri wp 88-17.doc of Rs. 5 Lacs, in default to undergo R.I. for one year. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC r/w S. 120-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, to undergo R.I. for six months. Further the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(5) r/w S. 4 of the MCOC Act r/w S. 120-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2 Lacs, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is that the period of imprisonment of 10 years imposed on him under Section 120-B of IPC & S. 3(2) r/w S. 2(1)(a) of the MCOC Act be reduced to the period undergone by the petitioner.
3. In order to consider the prayer of the petitioner, it would be necessary to record a few facts. Against the Judgment & Order dated 7.6.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai under MCOC Act in MCOC Special Case No. 3 of 1999, the petitioner had preferred jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:19:42 :::
3. cri wp 88-17.doc Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2001 before this Court. By Judgment & Order dated 20th and 22nd December, 2006, this Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Once this Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, it has become functus officio, hence, it is not possible for us to consider the prayer of the petitioner. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly states that the Court cannot alter a judgment in criminal matters after the judgment or final order disposing of the case is passed and the said order shall not be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
4. Mr. Khamkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was not dismissed on merits but it was dismissed as the petitioner/appellant was absconding when the appeal came up for hearing. However, the fact remains that the appeal has been dismissed by this Court, hence, the Judgment & Order of the Sessions Court is confirmed. In view of these circumstances, it is not possible jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:19:42 :::
3. cri wp 88-17.doc for us to grant the prayer made by the petitioner of reducing the sentence of the petitioner to the period undergone by him. Rule is discharged.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:19:42 :::