Ramesh Rambhau Bodhle vs State Of Maha
2016 Latest Caselaw 6306 Bom

                                                            Cri.Revn.Appln.No.173/2004
                                               1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                 
               CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2004




                                                        
     Ramesh s/o Rambhau Bodhle




                                                       
     Age 35 years, Occ. Labour,
     R/o Bori, Tq. Jintoor,
     District Parbhani                                   ...      PETITIONER




                                            
              VERSUS

     The State of Maharashtra
                             
     through the Sub-Inspector,
     Prohibition &Excise, Jintoor
     (Copy to be served on the
                            
     Public Prosecutor, High Court,
     Bench at Aurangabad)                                ...      RESPONDENT

                      .....
      

     Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for petitioner
     Shri C.V. Dharurkar, A.P.P. for respondent/ State
   



                      .....


                                      CORAM:        N.W. SAMBRE, J.

                                      DATED:        24th October, 2016.


     ORAL JUDGMENT :





     1.               Heard         Shri   Nikam,    learned      counsel        for     the

petitioner and Shri Dharurkar, learned A.P.P. for the State. In

Criminal Trial, being S.C.C. No.69/2002, the Judicial

Magistrate, First Class convicted the present petitioner for an

offence punishable under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay

Cri.Revn.Appln.No.173/2004

Prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/-, in

default, simple imprisonment for 15 days. In appeal being

Appeal No.4/2003, the appellate Court confirmed the

conviction. As such, the present revision against the

conviction.

2. Shri Nikam, the learned counsel would impress

upon the Court to release the petitioner on merits. However,

looking to the nature of evidence as is brought on record and

the prosecution having proved the case beyond reasonable

doubt, including that of the C.A. Report Exh.17 in connection

with the C.A. sample, which demonstrates the contents of

ethyl alcohol in the contraband and the evidence of Constable

Babu (P.W.1), no case for interference in conviction is made

out.

3. This takes me to the next limb of submission of

Shri Nikam. According to him, the incident in question has

taken place as back as on 2/11/2000 and the petitioner has

suffered for last 16 years because of his alleged act and the

petitioner is in custody from 10/10/2016 till this date. He

would submit that, the provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act be extended to the present petitioner as he is sentenced

Cri.Revn.Appln.No.173/2004

just for three months. In addition, he would submit that,

during the pendency, the petitioner is not convicted in any

other crime.

4. In view thereof, and having regard to the age of

the petitioner, in my opinion, it is a fit case wherein this Court

needs to exercise the jurisdiction under the Probation of

Offenders Act and order his release, I propose to pass the

following order:

5. The conviction of the present petitioner under the

provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act is maintained,

whereas the sentence is set aside. The petitioner shall appear

before the Probation Officer within a period of four weeks from

today and shall execute a bond of good behaviour with one

surety in the like amount for a period of 18 months. The

petitioner shall also attend the office of Probation Officer once

in every six months. With the above observations, present

Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of. The

petitioner be set free if not required in any other offence.

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)