DILIP RAMKRISHNA SURYAVANSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged in this Appeal the order of the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli dated 14-12-1990 in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1989 convicting them under section 149 of I. P. C. and directing them to execute a bond to keep good behaviour, for a period of two years in the sum of Rs. 2000/- under section 360 of Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE appellants were charged in the trial Court for several offences as follows : firstly they were charged for the offence of rioting punishable under section 147 of I. P. C. Secondly, they were charged for the offence of rioting under section 148 of I. P. C. Thirdly, they were charged for the offence under section 307 read with section 149 of I. P. C. Fourthly they were charged under section 323 read with section 149 of I. P. C. Fifthly they were charged under section 506 read with section 149 of I. P. C. They were also charged under section 379 for theft read with section 149 of I. P. C. Lastly they were charged under section 427 for mischief read with section 149 of I. P. C. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence of the appellants, the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 14-12-1990 acquitted the original Accused Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 10 of all the offences out of the total number of ten accused who were being prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. So far as the present appellants are concerned, who were original Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 they were acquitted of all the charges except the offence under section 149 of I. P. C. and directed to be released on probation on their executing a bond under section 360 of Cr. P. C. as stated earlier. From the observations of the learned Judge made in para 28 of the judgment. , it appears that he had held the appellant guilty for having committed offences punishable under section 147 and 148 i. e. for rioting and for committing mischief under section 427 of I. P. C. The offence punishable under section 427 of I. P. C. was allowed to be compounded as the same is compoundable under section 320 of Cr. P. C. with permission of the Court. The trial Court allowed the compounding of the offences under sections 147 and 148 of I. P. C. also for the reasons given in paragraph 28 of the judgment. The learned Judge ultimately convicted the appellants only under section 149 of I. P. C. and instead of sentencing them, they were directed to be released on probation under section 360 of Cr. P. C. on their executing bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- for a period of two years.

(3.) THE aforesaid order is impugned in this appeal. At the time of admission this Court had granted stay to the execution of the sentence i. e. execution of bonds as directed by the trial Court. The said stay order was passed on 4-4-91 and, therefore, none of the appellants had executed the bond as directed by the trial Court.