STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANILAL VISANJI GHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 16.4.1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.150/1996. By the impugned order the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondents-Accused and converted conviction of the accused from Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides, the Sessions Judge altered the sentence awarded by the Trial Court for a period of one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, to one of simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. It is therefore, not necessary for me to burden this Judgment with all other details relating to the incident in question or to finding of guilt. Suffice it to point out that, the incident is dated 3.12.1984. The Trial Court in its Judgment in Para 14 has observed as follows, so as to impose rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) REVERTING back to the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the Appellate Court took lenient view in the matter, I have no hesitation in rejecting the said argument. In the first place, the offence in question took place on 3.12.1984. Besides, it is established from the record and proceeding that the accused was arrested on 4.12.1984 and was in Magisterial custody till released on executing of personal bond on 12.12.1984. Be that as it may, it is relevant to note that the Sessions Court has altered the conviction from Section 380 to one under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no challenge to the said view taken by the Sessions Court in the present appeal. That by itself would be sufficient reason to sustain the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge in the present case. Undoubtedly, if the conviction was to be one under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment could have been imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and also fine. However, as the conviction is one under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, punishment can be of imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years only or fine or both. Understood thus, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Sessions Court in reducing the sentence and in particular for the reasons assigned in Para 20 of its Judgment. To put it differently, the accused was also entitled for set off for the period between 4.12.1984 till 12.12.1984, when he was in Magisterial custody. Moreover, the Sessions Court has enhanced the quantum of fine to the extent of Rs.5000/ and besides imposed simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Taking over all view of the matter, I am not inclined to enhance the sentence which is imposed by the Sessions Court, in the fact situation of the present case. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed.