Bombay High Court
Sitaram Nivrutti Sonawane & Anr vs State Of Maha on 23 November, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
(1) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 134 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Revision Application No. 134 of 2004
District : Ahmednagar
1. Shri Sitaram s/o. Nivrutti Sonawane,
Age : 46 years,
Occupation : Service.
2. Shri Bajirao s/o. Nivrutti Sonawane,
Age : 36 years,
Occupation : Service.
Both R/o. Loni (Kd.), ig .. Applicants
Taluka Rahata, (Original
District Ahmednagar. appellants)
versus
The State of Maharashtra. .. Non-applicant
(Original
complainant)
............
Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the applicants.
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for
the non-applicant
............
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S.K. Shinde, learned Advocate for
the applicants, and Mr. K.N. Lokhande, learned Addl.
(2) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 134 of 2004
Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.
02. The applicants have challenged the judgment
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, upholding
the conviction of the applicants for offence
punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate directed
that the applicants shall undergo simple imprisonment
for 03 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in
default of which, the applicants were required to
undergo simple imprisonment for 08 days. The learned
Addl. Sessions Judge has modified this part of the
judgment and has directed that the applicants shall
undergo the sentence till rising of the Court and to
pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which, the
applicants will have to undergo simple imprisonment
for 08 days.
03. The learned Advocate for the applicants has
submitted that during pendency of the appeal before
the Sessions Court, the complainant and the present
applicant no.2 entered into a compromise and a Pursis
(Exhibit No.22) was filed informing about the
compromise and along with the Pursis, document -
divorce deed (Exhibit No.40) was filed and
considering this aspect and the fact that the
applicant no.2 is in employment with the Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation, and the conviction
may adversely affect his prospect, the impugned
(3) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 134 of 2004
judgment and conviction be set aside. It is
submitted that the applicants have undergone the
sentence and have also deposited the amount of fine.
04. With the assistance of the learned Advocate
for the applicants and the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor, I have examined the documents placed on
record of the Revision Application. The learned
Advocate for the applicants has not been able to
point out any infirmity or perversity in the finding
concurrently recorded by the subordinate Courts
concluding that the prosecution has established that
the applicants have committed the offence. The
offence is not compoundable.
05. Hence, in the above facts, the impugned
judgment cannot be interfered with. The Revision
Application is dismissed.
( Z.A. HAQ )
JUDGE
..........
puranik / CRIREVNAPPLN134.04
