Satyawan Vitthal Khandekar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8438 Bom

                                     1                       Cri.Revn.5/2015

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2015

  Satyawan Vitthal Khandekar
  Age: 53 Yrs., occu. Service,
  R/o Phulenagar, Bhokar,
  Tq. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded.                    =        APPLICANT

           VERSUS

  The State of Maharashtra
  Through Bhokar Police Station,
  Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.                       =        RESPONDENT 
                           -----
  Ms.A.N.Ansari, Advocate for Applicant;
  Mr.AN Phule,APP for Respondent
                                   -----
                               CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

3 rd

November, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard learned Counsel appearing for

applicant and learned APP appearing for

Respondent-State.

2) The applicant has filed the present

criminal revision application taking exception to

the judgment and order passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Bhokar in Criminal Appeal No.

3/2012 decided on 19th December, 2014.

                                     2                      Cri.Revn.5/2015

  3)               The   applicant   was   initially   prosecuted 

in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bhokar, vide Regular Criminal Case

No.58 of 2010 for the offences punishable under

Sections 294, 332, 336 and 353 of Indian Penal

Code. The learned Magistrate held the applicant

guilty for the offence punishable under Sections

332 and 353 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer

R.I. for two years for the offence punishable

under Section 332 of IPC; whereas R.I. for one

year for the offence punishable under Section 353

of IPC. The applicant was acquitted from the

offence punishable under Sections 294 and 336 of

IPC.

4) Against the said judgment and order the

applicant preferred criminal appeal No.3/2012

before the Sessions Court at Bhokar. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the

appeal. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the

conviction of the applicant under Sections 353

and 332 and acquitted the applicant from the said

3 Cri.Revn.5/2015

offence. The learned Sessions Judge, however,

convicted the applicant for the offence under

Section 336 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer

S.I. for three months. Aggrieved by, the

applicant has preferred the present criminal

revision.

5) Perused the impugned judgment and order.

The order passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge is apparently unsustainable.

Admittedly, no appeal was preferred against the

judgment and order passed by the learned

Magistrate in RCC No.58/2010 whereby the

applicant was acquitted of the offence punishable

under Section 336 of IPC. The applicant was

admittedly convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 353 and 332 of IPC and the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal preferred by

the applicant, acquitted the applicant from both

the aforesaid offences. In absence of any appeal

preferred against the acquittal recorded by the

learned Magistrate for the offence punishable

4 Cri.Revn.5/2015

under Section 336 of IPC, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge was not empowered to convict the

applicant for the said offence. The impugned

order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set

aside and is accordingly set aside. The applicant

stands acquitted of the offence punishable under

Section 336 of IPC. His bail bond stands

cancelled. Criminal Revision Application stands

allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/