ASHOK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.1.2003 in Criminal Case No. 308/2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol, convicting the revision applicant for offence punishable under Sec. 294 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one month and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, further R.I. for one month; and confirming the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -4, Nagpur, vide judgment and order dated 10th October, 2006, the present Revision was filed by the revision -applicant.

(2.) In support of the Revision, learned counsel for the revision applicant, Mr. R.M. Patwardhan has vehemently argued that though the revision -applicant had engaged a lawyer for defending him, his lawyer did not appear and Court below made a mistake in continuing with the trial and completing the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suk Das and another vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh : : 1986 CRI.L.J. 1084, the learned counsel submitted that the trial is entirely vitiated, inasmuch as the fundamental right of the applicant is violated and, therefore, prayed for acquittal. He then submitted that, in the alternative, the applicant is a labourer and has to win his bread and, therefore, should not be asked to undergo R.I. for one month, in lieu thereof, this Court may impose reasonable amount of fine since the offence had taken place as far back as in the year 2000.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Revision and argued that both the Courts below have concurrently found the applicant guilty. Inviting my attention to paragraph 19 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, the learned A.P.P. submitted that several opportunities were given to the applicant to bring his Advocate for defending him, but the Advocate did not turn up and, therefore, the judgment cited supra by Mr. Patwardhan, is inapplicable to the facts of the case. The learned APP submitted that the facts would reveal that the applicant had hurled vulgar vituperative at women and, therefore, reduction of sentence would not be justified. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revision.