NAGJI JIVRAJ SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Criminal Revision Application, under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein ­ original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order dtd.6/10/2007 passed by the learned trial court - learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No. 3329 of 2004 convicting the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 21(1) and (2) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act" for convenience) and directing the petitioner - original accused to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months as well as the impugned Judgement and Order dtd.17/7/2012 passed by the learned appellate court - learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2007, by which the learned Judge has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner - original accused, confirming the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.

(2.) THAT the respondent No.2 ­ original complainant lodged the complaint against the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 21(1) and (2) read with section 31A of the Act, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 3329 of 2004. That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, by the Judgement and Order dtd.6/10/2007 held the petitioner - original accused guilty for the offences punishable under section 21(1) and 21(2) and section 31(A) of the Act punishable under section 37 of the Act and convicting the appellant for the said offence and imposed punishment of one year and six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo further three months Simple Imprisonment.

(3.) AFTER elaborate submissions, Mr.Nital Dhruve, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused, under the instructions of the petitioner - original accused, has stated at the bar that the petitioner - original accused does not press the present present Criminal Revision Application in so far as challenging the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court confirming the Judgement and Order of conviction passed by the learned trial court convicting the accused for the offence under section 21(1) & 21(2) and section 31(A) of the Act, punishable under section 37 of the Act. However, has requested to consider the question of sentence and has requested to reduce the sentence from one year and six months Simple Imprisonment to one year Simple Imprisonment. It is submitted that fine is already deposited / paid by the accused.