MURARI BALWANT METKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this revision, the applicant impugns the judgment and order dated 7th July, 1992, passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1988, whereby the judgment and order dated 4-4-88, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpalgaon-Baswant, Dist. Nasik, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 3 months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for two months, for the offence under section 468 I. P. C. has been confirmed.

(2.) I have perused the impugned judgments and I find that there is good evidence on the basis on which the applicant has been convicted for the offence under section 468 I. P. C. That evidence has been comprehensively set out in the impugned judgments and therefore, I am not making any reference to it. It is well settled that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not act as a third Court of fact. It interferes with the finding of fact only if they are perverse and this cannot be said to be so in the instant case. In my view, the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 468 I. P. C. merits to be sustained.

(3.) SINCE the incident is alleged to have been taken place a few days less than 15 years ago and there is nothing to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict, I think, the instant case does not call for a jail sentence.