Bombay High Court
Mukund Biharilal Pardeshi And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr on 16 June, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
1 of 4 5.IA.1660.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1660 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.197 OF 2022
Mukund Biharilal Pardeshi and others Applicants
versus
Union of India and another Respondents
Ms.Rui Danawala i/by Mr.U.R.Mankapure, Advocate for applicants.
Mr.A.D.Kamkhedkar, APP, for State.
Mr.Shreeram Shirsat with Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Union
of India.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 16th June 2022
PC :
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail during pendency of revision application preferred by applicants
challenging impugned judgments of conviction. The applicants are
convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Railway Court, Pune vide judgment and order dated 19 th November
2011. The applicants were convicted for the offence u/s.3(a) of
Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Applicant no.1
was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years wheres applicant
nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year each.
2. The judgment and order dated 19th November 2011 passed by
the Trial Court convicting the applicants was challenged by
preferring appeal before the Court of Sessions at Sangli. The appeal
was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11 th May 2022. The
2 of 4 5.IA.1660.2022.doc
applicants are taken in custody on the date of judgment and since
then they are undergoing sentence.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that there are
serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The case is primarily based on the evidence of Investigating Officer
(PW-1) and the alleged eye witness (PW-4). The independent
witness i.e. panch witness to the seizure which is the prime evidence
relied upon by prosecution has not supported the prosecution case
and has been declared hostile. There are contradictions in the
evidence of witnesses. The applicants were on bail during pendency
of trial as well as appeal. The facility of bail was not misused by the
applicants. Sentence of imprisonment is of short term and in the
event sentence is not suspended, the revision application would
become infructuous.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that there are
concurrent findings of two Courts. Trial Court as well as appellate
Court has appreciated the evidence. The seizure was proved. The
accused were found committing robbery of the high speed diesel
from the wagon. They were apprehended on the spot. Evidence of
Investigating Officer (PW-1) and the eye witness who had forwarded
information to the Investigating Officer (PW-4), establishes the crime
against applicants. The offence is of serious nature. Revisional Court
has limited powers. Only in exceptional circumstances revision can
be entertained. There is sufficient evidence against applicants. The
Trial Court as well as appellate Court has appreciated the evidence
while convicting the applicants. Applicant no.1 was convicted in the
past. Learned counsel pointed out the observations in paragraph 3 of
3 of 4 5.IA.1660.2022.doc
the judgment of Appellate Court wherein it is mentioned that
accused no.1 was twice convicted in Crime No.13/83 and 14/84.
Learned counsel relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of
Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration (1975)4-SCC-649. In the light
of the evidence adduced before Trial Court and the judgment of both
the Courts below, there is no scope for entertaining the revision
application. Therefore the revision application itself may be
dismissed.
5. Applicant no.1 has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment of
two years whereas applicant nos.2 and 3 are sentenced to
imprisonment of one year each for the aforesaid offences. The
applicants are in custody from 11th May 2022. The applicants have
urged that there are discrepancies in the evidence adduced before
Trial Court. Section 401 of Cr.P.C indicate that High Court's powers
of revision. It is categorically stipulated that powers of Appellate
Court embodied in Section 386, 389, 390 and 391 may be exercised
by the High Court. Since the revision relates to conviction, the
revision has been admitted. The sentence is of short term. The
applicants were on bail during trial and appeal. The grounds urged
in this application can be considered at the stage of final hearing of
revision. It is not clear as to for what offences the applicant no.1 was
convicted and whether that conviction has been suffered or
challenged or set aside by higher Court. The Appellate Court
judgment, however, refers that there were two previous convictions
for the offences of the years 1983 and 1984. The status of those
convictions are not clear. In any case, the alleged offences were of
the year 1983 and 1984.
4 of 4 5.IA.1660.2022.doc
6. Considering all the above aspects, the sentence of
imprisonment can be suspended. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Interim application is allowed and disposed of;
(ii) During pendency of Criminal Revision Application No.197 of
2022, the sentence of imprisonment imposed vide judgment and
order dated 19th November 2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate,
Railway Court, Pune in RCC No.33 of 2003 and confirmed by
Sessions Judge, Sangli vide judgment and order dated 11 th May 2022
in Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2011 is suspended and applicants are
directed to be released on bail on executing PR bond in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii) The applicants are permitted to furnish cash bail in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- each for a period of six weeks in lieu of sureties;
(iv) The applicants shall report the Trial Court once in six months
on every first Monday of the month between 11 am and 1 pm till
final disposal of revision application;
(v) In the event there are two consecutive defaults in attending
the Trial Court by applicants, the Trial Court shall submit report to
this Court;
(vi) In the event of default committed by the applicants in
attending the Trial Court, the prosecution will be at liberty to prefer
application for cancellation of bail.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
