Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Tanya Alias Tanaji Vithal Bhosale Alias ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514/2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 1909 of 2022]
TANYA ALIAS TANAJI VITHAL BHOSALE ALIAS BHOLE APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal lays challenge to the decision dated 1 st October, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, upholding the conviction and consequential sentences of the appellant (Accused No.11) under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and Sections 397 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that the appellant (Accused No.11) along with other coaccused are members of an organized crime syndicate. The appellant, along with coaccused committed a daylight robbery in Khandelwal Jewellery Shop at Amravati on 31.08.2010 and looted various gold items after terrorizing the employees Signature Not Verified with deadly weapons and also caused injuries to the Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND persons present in the shop. The Special Judge, MCOCA at Amravati Date: 2022.04.06 16:50:44 IST Reason: analyzed the entire evidence consisting of statements of the owner of the shop and his employees who witnessed the occurrence, CCTV 2 footage, hard disc of the computer and Test Identification Parade and accepting such overwhelming evidence, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced in the following terms: “As per section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. Accused No.11 Tanaji Bhosale alias Tanaji Bhole is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under Sections 397, 120 of I.P.C.
The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twelve years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/ each for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years. (As offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. and 3(4) of MCOC Act is included in Section 3(1)(ii) of MCOC Act, he is not separately sentenced for those offences). Accused 11 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/ each for offence punishable under section 3(2) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each. (As offence under Section 120B of I.P.C. is included in Section 3(2) of MCOC Act, he is not separately sentenced for that offence.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.” The appellant challenged his conviction and sentences before the High Court but his appeal was dismissed. During the course of hearing, we are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this Court vide Order dated 2622021 in similar matters arising out of the impugned Judgment of the High Court, modified the impugned judgments of the Special Judge (MCOCA) and of the High Court to the limited extent that in the event of nonpayment of fine of Rs.5 lakhs on each count under the MCOCA, the appellants were liable to undergo default sentences 3 of six months each in place of two years, as awarded by the Courts below.
They pray that a similar order may be passed in the instant matter.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have seen from the operative part of the judgment of the Special Judge (MCOCA) that a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs each for offence(s) punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) or Section 3(2) of MCOCA was imposed on the appellant, and in default thereto, he was directed to undergo additional sentence for two years. It is true that MCOCA, upon conviction, mandatorily contemplates the imposition of a minimum fine of Rs.5 lakhs on each count. That being so, we do not find any error in the levy of fine of Rs.5 lakhs under the provisions of MCOCA, referred to above. We are nevertheless of the considered view that the imposition of default sentence of two years is disproportionately higher and deserves to be suitably reduced.
Taking into consideration the overall sentence period and other attending facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal in part. The impugned judgments of the Special Judge (MCOCA) and of the High Court are modified to the limited extent that in the event of nonpayment of fine of Rs.5 lakhs on each count under the MCOCA, the appellant shall be liable to undergo default sentences of six months each in place of two years, as awarded by the Courts below.
4The appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
..................CJI (N.V.RAMANA) ..................J. (KRISHNA MURARI) ..................J. (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI DATED 29TH MARCH, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1909/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01102018 in CRLA No. 472/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur) TANYA ALIAS TANAJI VITHAL BHOSALE ALIAS BHOLE Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (SERVICE COMPLETE.
(IA No. 16082/2022 EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA No. 16083/2022 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 29032022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Applications seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned Order as also seeking exemption from filing official translation of Annexures are allowed.6
Leave granted.
The appeal is partly allowed, in terms of the signed order.
(VISHAL ANAND) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)