YOGENDRASING PRALHADSING RAJPUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this criminal revision application is admitted and heard finally, at this stage. The Applicant, by this criminal revision application, challenges his conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkheda by judgment dated 17th July, 2005 in R.C.C. No. 60 of 2005 convicting the applicant for offence punishable under section 353 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of which to undergo further S.I. for 1 month, and confirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2008, dated 23rd July, 2010.

(2.) At the out set, Shri Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant has urged before me that in the light of the evidence of the prosecution, the applicant does not wish to challenge his conviction on merits but the submission is restricted insofar as the sentence which is awarded to the applicant. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the applicant has undergone 23 days of imprisonment and, therefore, the applicant may be released on the period of sentence already undergone by the applicant.

(3.) It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant, who was driving private jeep, had obstructed the State Transport Bus from proceeding further and thus had used criminal force and had committed offence under section 353 of I.P.C. The applicant, however, is acquitted in respect of the charge that the applicant has alleged to have caused hurt to the driver of the State Transport Bus. The trial Court at paragraph 30 of the judgment has come to the conclusion that an offence punishable under section 332 of I.P.C. is not made out. The trial Court had accordingly acquitted the applicant for offence punishable under section 332, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In the light of the aforesaid facts, according to me, the sentence of R.I. for 3 months is extremely harsh in the light of the fact that the applicant is not alleged to have assaulted the public servant but is alleged to have only obstructed the passage of the State Transport Bus. The complainant has admitted that it was a wide road and he could have proceeded further. In the light of the matter, therefore, according to me, the sentence of imprisonment of 23 days, which has been undergone by the applicant, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is partly allowed and the conviction of the applicant for offence punishable under section 353 of I.P.C. is confirmed. However, the sentence of R.I. for 3 months is set aside and instead the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 23 days which is already undergone by the Applicant. The sentence of fine of Rs. 3,000/- as well as default sentence, however, is confirmed.