SHARAD BALKRUSHNA DEOTALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is against the judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha in Criminal Case No. 573 of 2000 thereby convicting the applicant (hereinafter referred as accused) for the offence punishable under Sec. 384 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, further to suffer SI for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 385 of the Indian Penal Code. However, separate sentence is not awarded. The said judgment was challenged in Regular Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Wardha. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.11.2011.

(2.) The case of the prosecution against the applicant/accused in short is that the accused is a journalist by profession. One Sonba Bhaisare (complainant) owned Survey No. 125 of Mouza Kamathwada, Gram Panchayat Warud adjacent to Sewagram to Kharangana (Gode) road. Sonba Bhaisare wanted to demarcate the plots for sale. In the year 1994-95, he got converted the land to non-agricultural from agricultural. After such conversion, Sonba sold various plots out of the said layout at market rates to various people. Some purchasers constructed their houses on the said plots.

(3.) From the year 1999, accused Sharad Deotale (journalist by profession) started meeting Sonbaji regularly. In those meetings, the accused used to tell Sonbaji that the land which he converted into nonagricultural was a Bhoodan Land and, therefore, the said conversion is illegal. Not only this, but accused used to tell Sonbaji that he is journalist and would publish the said fact in newspaper and would even file Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against him. The accused also threatened complainant Sonba with pressurising the Collector compel him to demolish the houses built on the plots already sold by Sonbaji. To create an atmosphere of fear, the accused went to the extent of visiting the houses of the people who had constructed their houses on the plots purchased from the informant. Accused told them that the Collector would demolish their houses and even took photographs of the same.