Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Pralhadrao Biradar vs The State Of Maharashtra Public ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
2023:BHC-AUG:16432
1 965-CrRn-196-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.196 OF 2023
WITH APPLN/2441/2023 IN REVN/196/2023
CHANDRAKANT PRALHADRAO BIRADAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Gunale
APP for Respondent : Mr. S. B. Narwade
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 03-08-2023
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned
A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
2. The applicant is seeking suspension of sentence imposed
upon him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the
offence punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code
and simple imprisonment for three years each for the offences
punishable under Sections 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Udgir, by
his judgment and order in Regular Criminal Case No.256 of 2018
dated 30.03.2019 and confirmed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Udgir, by his judgment and order in Criminal
Appeal No.7 of 2019, dated 15.05.2023.
2 965-CrRn-196-23.odt
3. Though this Court had circulated a judgment passed in
Criminal Revision Application No.318 of 2022 with Application
No.3633 of 2022 (Sambhaji Digambar Kachgund vs The State Of
Maharashtra) dated 03.05.2023, as regards the procedure to be
followed after dismissal of the appeal. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Udgir appears to have not followed it and instead
of taking the accused into custody for sending him to undergo the
sentence, he left the accused without any orders.
4. Since the applicant was not taken into custody by the
appellate court, he approached this Court and was seeking
suspension. When the legal position was brought to the notice of
the learned counsel for the applicant, he stated that the applicant
would surrender before the trial court. However, in the morning,
he submitted that the applicant went to the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, to surrender. However, the
Judicial Officer denied to take him into custody saying that unless
there are orders, he would not take him into custody. Then, he
approached to Mr. P. D. Subhedar, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Udgir. He told him that he has already sent the record and
papers to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, he
cannot take him into custody. Such a conduct on the part of the
learned Judicial Officers is a matter of serious concern. On his
statement, learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court was called and
asked to find out the facts. He made phone call to the learned
3 965-CrRn-196-23.odt
Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir. In reply, he informed him that
the applicant was taken into custody by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class and conviction warrant has been issued. In
such a way, the applicant has been taken into custody.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
conviction was for a short-term of three years. There is wide
scope to interpret the ingredients of Section 354A of the Indian
Penal Code. The applicant is now running around 51 years and at
the time of the incident, he was 42 years old. The applicant has a
good case on merit. There were no antecedents to his discredit.
He has referred to both the impugned judgments and orders and
argued that the evidence has not been properly appreciated and
the law involved in the case has not been properly interpreted.
Hence, the applicant deserves suspension of sentence.
6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. would submit that there are two
concurrent judgments against the applicant. The prosecution had
proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt. There is a little
scope for the revisional Court to interfere with the impugned
judgments and orders. Prima facie there are no errors on the face
of the record in the impugned judgments and orders. Hence, the
applicant does not deserve suspension of sentence.
7. Perused the impugned judgments and orders and other
papers.
4 965-CrRn-196-23.odt
8. It is a case of sexual harassment of a woman. Considering
the material on record, the applicant appears to have the legal
issues to be argued in the revision. The applicant has roots in
village Awalkonda, Taluka Udgir, District Latur.
9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts in toto, the
Court is of the view that this is a fit case to exercise discretion
under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the
order:-
i) Application No.2441 of 2023 is allowed.
ii) The execution, implementation, effect and operation of the
sentence imposed upon the applicant, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable
under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code and simple
imprisonment for three years each for the offences
punishable under Sections 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court
No.4, Udgir, by his judgment and order in Regular Criminal
Case No.256 of 2018 dated 30.03.2019 and confirmed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, by his
judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2019, dated
15.05.2023 stands suspended till the conclusion of the
revision.
iii) The applicant be released on bail on executing P.B. and S.B.
of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.
5 965-CrRn-196-23.odt
iv) Bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir.
v) Call R & P.
vi) List the Revision Application on 20.09.2023.
vii) Report submitted by the learned Registrar (Judicial) be made
part of the record as annexure 'A' and the application filed
by the learned counsel for the applicant be marked as
annexure 'B'.
( S. G. MEHARE, J. )
rrd
