Maroti S/O Malhari Bandiwar vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3892 Bom

                                                         1                                 39.REVN.89-2022.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 89 OF 2022
                                   ( Maroti S/o Malhari Bandiwar
                                                Vs.
                                       State of Maharashtra )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. A.S. Band, Advocate for the Applicant.
                                  Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant/State.



                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 11th APRIL, 2022.

Heard Mr. Band, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the non-applicant/State.

2. The application challenges the judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagbhid, District Chandrapur on 20.02.2014, whereby the present applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer three months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer ten days Simple Imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to suffer two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer one month Simple Imprisonment.

2 39.REVN.89-2022.odt

3. The learned Sessions Court, by the judgment dated 05.02.2022 has maintained the conviction, however the sentence awarded to the applicant under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code has been reduced from two years to one year. It is these two judgments which are being challenged in the present application.

4. Mr. Band, learned counsel for the applicant submits, that though the act on part of the applicant, was not justifiable, however considering that he is a physically handicapped person and has suffered incarceration since 05.02.2022, the sentence be reduced to one undergone till date.

5. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the non-applicant/State, vehemently opposes the application and considering the nature of the incident for which the applicant has been convicted submits, that such action ought not to be countenanced by the Court as it reflects adversely upon the administration of justice, and therefore, the application needs to be rejected.

6. The sentence and conviction of the applicant is for the reason, that the applicant alongwith others was accused of an offence under Sections 324, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in R.C.C. No. 64/2008, in which on 22.03.2010, at about 02.30 p.m., when the learned Magistrate, resumed the dais and pronounced the sentence upon the applicant, being aggrieved by the same, the applicant took out his 3 39.REVN.89-2022.odt

footwear and hurled it at the learned Magistrate, fortunately it missed him because he dodged it, as a result of which, it went and struck the almirah on the back of dais. It is for this reason, that the applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Sections 352 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, which sentence has been reduced by the learned Sessions Court in appeal by the judgment dated 05.02.2022.

7. The happening of the unfortunate incident as concurrently found by the Courts below is not disputed by Mr. Band, learned counsel for the applicant. The only plea is regarding clemency, on account of the physical disability of the applicant. In my considered opinion, physically disabled or not, the applicant was aware of the nature of the action, attributed to him, which is an action which cannot be countenanced by this Court for any reason whatsoever. The learned Magistrate, was only doing what in law he was enjoined to do and was merely performing his duty in that regard. Merely because the applicant was being convicted of the offence of which he was charged, that was no ground to him for doing the act which has been proved against him. Already clemency has been shown by the learned Sessions Court, by reducing the sentence for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code from two years to one year, in view of which, considering the position, that the applicant has admitted the said incident, in respect of which, there is a concurrent finding by the Courts below 4 39.REVN.89-2022.odt

by well reasoned judgments, I see no perversity in the findings nor the sentence imposed, in view of which, the application is rejected. No costs.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte

Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE

Signing Date:12.04.2022 17:46