Subhash S/O Vishwanath Dhoke (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1683 Bom

                                                                           revn3.16


                                            1




                                                                            
                                                    
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                            Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2016




                                                   
     Subhash son of Vishwanath Dhoke,
     aged about 34, occ - Nil,
     resident of New Babhulkheda
     near Maitri Vihar, Ajni,




                                        
     Nagpur.                                           .....           Applicant.
                              ig        Versus
                            
     State of Maharashtra,
     through Police Station
     Officer, Amdapur,
     Tq. Chikhali,
     Distt. Buldana.                                 .....    Non-Applicant.
      
   



                                   *****
     Shri Mangesh V. Bute, Adv. [appointed].

     Shri S. M. Bhagde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent.





                                         *****

                                     CORAM :        Z. A. HAQ, J.

                                     Date       :   20th April, 2016





     ORAL JUDGMENT:

01. Heard Shri Mangesh Bute, learned Adv., [appointed] for the

Applicant and Shri S.M. Bhagde, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the

revn3.16

non-applicant. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

02. The applicant, accused, has filed this Revision Application

making the grievance that the Sessions Court, while deciding the

appeal, has committed an error in not appreciating that the enhanced

punishment for second offence could not have been awarded by the

learned Magistrate.

03. The Magistrate convicted the applicant/accused for offence

punishable under Sections 170, 385 and 419 of Indian Penal Code. The

Magistrate found that the applicant/accused was earlier convicted for

offence punishable under Sections 170 and 419 of Indian Penal Code

and, therefore, imposed enhanced sentence. The applicant/accused

had filed appeal before Sessions Court, challenging the imposition of

enhanced sentence.

04. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the provisions of

law and the legal position in paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 of his

Judgment, and it cannot be said that the consideration of the point by

the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous. The Judgment passed by the

learned Sessions Judge is legal, proper and does not require any

interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

revn3.16

05. Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2016 is dismissed.

06. The fees for the matter should not be paid to the learned

Adv., [appointed] to represent the applicant, as the matter is not

properly presented to the Court.

                              ig                                  Judge
                                   -0-0-0-0-
                            
     |hedau|