INDRABALI PATAI RAJBHAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25/09/2008 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.524 of 2005 convicting the appellant, who was the sole accused who had faced the trial, of offences punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (For Short, "the IPC") and Section 395 of the IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge imposed a sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.500/ with respect to the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ with respect to the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) In this case, the offenders were said to be seven. Five out of them, including the appellant, were apprehended and chargesheeted. The other four, however, absconded after a charge was framed and before the recording of evidence was to commence. It is under these circumstances that the appellant alone was prosecuted and convicted, as aforesaid.

(3.) Since the conviction was recorded on a trial held by Assistant Sessions Judge and the sentences imposed upon the appellant were only of three years, the appeal ought to have been filed before the Court of Sessions itself. However, somehow it was filed in this Court and without noticing that it ought to be filed before the Court of Sessions, it was admitted by this Court about seven years back. That, it should have been filed before the Court of Sessions was revealed only when the appeal was taken up for final hearing and the arguments commenced. Under these circumstances, I have thought it fit to have the appeal decided by this Court only.