GOVIND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Application is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 7/97 which was pending in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The appeal was filed by Revision petitioner to challenge the judgment and order of S.C.C. No. 181/95 which was pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Aurangabad. The JMFC had convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 279, 427 of I.P.C. and 185 of Motor Vehicle Act. The Sessions Court set aside the judgment and order in respect of conviction given for offence punishable u/s 427 of I.P.C. but the remaining part of judgment and order delivered by J.M.F.C. was confirmed by Sessions Court.

(2.) In the present proceeding, both sides are heard. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount and as he was taken in custody due to his absence, he has undergone the sentence which was given by J.M.F.C. and which was only till rising of the Court and so, there is no need to take the petitioner in custody for undergoing the substantive sentence. He submitted that in view of this fact, the matter can be disposed of.

(3.) This Court has gone through the facts of the case and the evidence. It appears that the dash was given by the vehicle of the petitioner from backside. The petitioner was driving the police van and the dash was given to a stationery bus. When the petitioner was arrested and blood sample was collected, in his blood, Alcohol was detected which was beyond the permitted limit. In the trial Court, spot panchanama is proved. As the dash was given to backside of the stationery vehicle, there was virtually nothing with the petitioner to defend. The evidence which can be seen in the spot panchanama and the oral evidence, is sufficient to infer that there was rash or negligent driving and that evidence is sufficient to prove the offence punishable u/s 279 of IPC. The record of detection of Alcohol in blood sample is also proved and in view of this fact, there is no scope to challenge the conviction given u/s 185 of Motor Vehicle Act. As the petitioner has undergone the substantive sentence and the fine amount is already deposited, nothing survives in the present Revision Application and the same stands disposed of.