High CourtsSingle Bench(1997) 07 BOM CK 0012

Shri Murari Balwant Metkar vs The State of Maharashtra

Bombay High Court · Decided on 19 July 1997 · Citation: (1998) BomCR(Cri) 414 : (1998) 3 MhLj 1006

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vishnu Sahai, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Application No. 149 of 1992

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 382 words

Vishnu Sahai, J.—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 u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

4.

In the result, the revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed. Although I uphold the conviction of the applicant for the offence u/s 468 I.P.C. but I reduce his jail sentence of 3 months R.I. to the period already undergone by him. I, however, maintain the sentence of fine and that on its default imposed on the applicant in case the applicant has not paid the fine of Rs. 1000/-, he may do so within 3 months from today in the trial Court, failing which, he would suffer the sentence in default of payment of fine.

5.

Rule is disposed off in the aforesaid manner. The fine shall also be accepted on production of a certified copy of my judgment which, in case, an application is made, shall be issued on an expedited basis.

6.

Revision partly allowed.