Bombay High Court
Pandurang Laxmanrao Salve vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 2019
Author: V.M.Deshpande
Bench: V.M.Deshpande
93.19Revn..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2019
Pandurang Laxmanrao Salve,
Age: 43 Years, Occu:Driver,
R/o. At post Rajona, Tq.Basmath,
Dist. Hingoli. ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani.
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
..RESPONDENT
...
Mr.A.N.Patil-Barhate, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, Addl.P.P. for the
respondent-State
...
CORAM: V.M.DESHPANDE,J.
DATE : 26.03.2019
PER COURT:
1] Heard Shri A.N.Patil-Barhate,
learned counsel for the applicant in this
Criminal Revision Application, who questions ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 00:58:17 ::: 93.19Revn..odt 2 the correctness of the judgment and order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Parbhani in S.C.C.No. 161 of 2011, which is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.96/2014 on 12.03.2019.
2] The learned Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant is directed to suffer R.I. for three month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer further S.I. for 15 days. The learned Magistrate also found the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant is directed to suffer R.I. for six month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer further S.I. for 15 days.
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 00:58:17 :::
93.19Revn..odt 3 3] In the Appeal carried out by the applicant before the learned Appellate Court, the said order and judgment was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
4] As per the prosecution case, on 29.11.2010 at about 6.45 p.m. the present applicant was driving a truck in a most rash and negligent manner, resulting into giving dash from the backside to the deceased Parmeshwar, aged about 17 years. Thus, by the rash and negligent act on the part of the present applicant, the valuable life of the young person was cut down.
5] A complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW-3 Deepak Deshmukh and PW-4 Ashok Chalgode, as eye witnesses, who state that they have noticed ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 00:58:17 ::: 93.19Revn..odt 4 at the relevant time that the present applicant was driving truck loaded with the sugarcane in a rash and negligent manner. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that a truck loaded with the sugar cane cannot be driven fastly. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is a contradiction between the statements of the eye witnesses. Presently, this Court is not exercising its power under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, the Court is exercising the power under the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, unless and until the perversity is shown, the Court will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence as done by both the Courts below. The Counsel for applicant could not point out the same.
6] Further the learned counsel for the applicant would submit before the Court that ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 00:58:17 ::: 93.19Revn..odt 5 the applicant has already paid the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the father of the deceased, and therefore, he is entitled for the relief as prayed for. This Court is unable to accept this type of the submissions made before this Court, which shows that the applicant is having arrogance of money power, since he is the owner of the truck.
7] After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and after perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and orders delivered by the Courts below. Resultantly there is no merit in the present Criminal Revision Application, and hence the same is rejected. The Applicant to undergo the remaining sentence.
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 00:58:17 :::
93.19Revn..odt 6 8] Since the Criminal Revision Application is rejected, the Criminal Application No.1086/2019 for bail is also disposed of as infructuous.
[V.M.DESHPANDE] JUDGE DDC ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2019 00:58:17 :::