The State Of Maharashtra vs Mithilesh Harishchandra Yadav
2016 Latest Caselaw 1097 Bom

    Tilak                                     1/2                   (16)APEAL-583-15

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                     
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.583 OF 2015




                                                             
    The State of Maharashtra                         .. Appellant
          Versus
    Mithilesh Harishchandra Yadav                    .. Respondent
                                               ---




                                                            
    Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the appellant State.

                                             ---




                                                    
                                        CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

                                   ig   DATED  :    1st  APRIL 2016
                                             ---
    ORAL ORDER :-
                                 
     

    1                  The respondent was convicted of offences punishable 

under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(POCSO), but instead of sentencing him to any punishment, the

learned trial Judge thought it fit to give benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to him. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to be released on his entering into a

bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the mean time, to keep the peace and to be of good

behaviour. It is against the said order that the State of Maharashtra has filed the present Appeal, purportedly under the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code).

    2                  Section 377 of the Code speaks of an appeal  against  
    the   sentence  on   the   ground   of   its   inadequacy.    In   this   case,   no 





     Tilak                                2/2                   (16)APEAL-583-15

sentence has been awarded. There is, therefore, no question of 'inadequacy of sentence' and there is no question of seeking

'enhancement' of a non-existing sentence.

3 The Appeal, as filed by State of Maharashtra is not maintainable. The State of Maharashtra shall be at liberty to file an Appeal, as contemplated u/s.11 of the Probation of Offenders

Act, if so advised.

4 Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)