PANDHARINATH DHONDIBA JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case where we have to make the rule absolute, because of a technical error. Actually having regard to this carrier as a criminal, the learned Magistrate found that the accused deserves a higher punishment and committed the case to the Court of Session with the aid of section 75 of the Indian Penal Code so that the accused may be adequately punished. But strangely enough the learned Sessions Judge while convicting the accused of the offences under sections 457, 380 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced the accused under section 457 of imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and for the offence under section 380 also, he sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- When the offence under section 457 involves by necessary implication offence under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, while no doubt that the conviction is technically correct, we could not ask the accused to suffer consecutive sentence on that score. The proper way to deal with the accused would have been to give a higher punishment and then to make them concurrent.

(2.) IN the result, the application has got to be allowed and the substantive sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are hereby directed to run concurrently. Rule absolute.