Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Shaikh Shafi Shaikh Ahmed & Ors vs State Of Maha on 6 March, 2019

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil

                                        1                           36 cra 224.04.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.224 OF 2004
                        WITH APPLN/192/2019

1.      Shaikh Shafi Shaikh Ahamed
        Age : 47 years, Occu : Agri.,

2.      Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Ahamed
        Age : 42 years, Occu : Agri.,

3.      Shamad Shafi Shaikh Ahamed
        Age : 73 years, Occu : Agri.,

4.      Ajij Shaikh Ahamed
        Age : 57 years, Occu : Agri.,

5.      Shaikh Yousuf s/o Sk. Amar
        Age : 52 years, Occu : Agri.,

6.      Sk. Karim s/o Sk. Mohammed
        Age : 52 years, Occu : Agri.,

7.      Sk. Shami s/o Sk. Yakub
        Age : 44 years, Occu : Agri.,

8.      Sk. Badru s/o Sk. Gafoor
        Age : 49 years, Occu : Agri.,

9.      Sk. Kathu s/o Sk. Ahamed @ Sk. Amir
        Age : 62 years, Occu : Agri.,

        All R/o : Ranjangaon Dandga,
        Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.                ...       Applicants

                          V/s.

        The State of Maharashtra                      ...       Respondent
                                     ...
      Advocate for Applicants : S/Shri D.K. Kulkarni, S.K. Barlota and
                            Bhosale Abhaysinh K.
             APP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale
                                     ...

::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019                  ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 05:03:05 :::
                                        2                            36 cra 224.04.odt



                                  CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 06.03.2019 P.C. :

Heard the learned advocates for the applicants and the learned A.P.P.

2. The applicants were convicted by the J.M.F.C. Paithan for different offences and sentenced to suffer imprisonment as well as fine as is mentioned in the judgment and order dated 27.06.2002 in R.C.C. No. 172 of 1987. They preferred Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2002. By the judgment and order dated 04.06.2004 the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of some of the accused i.e. the present applicants but reduced the period of imprisonment. Impugning that order of conviction / confirmation of conviction the applicants are before this Court.

3. The learned advocates for the applicants restricted their arguments only as to the point of quantum of the sentence / punishment. They pointed out that in respect of accused no.8 Shaikh Osman Sk. Rasool in Cri. Revision Application No. 222 of 2004 by the judgment and order dated 29.11.2018, after considering all the aspects, age of the applicant, the period which he had already undergone in jail, the course adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Narayan Aba Pawar & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra; 2014 (3) Bom C.R. (Cri. 42) as well as considering all the other aspects of the matter ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 05:03:05 ::: 3 36 cra 224.04.odt this Court has disposed of the revision by reducing the sentence and increasing the fine amount. Therefore, the similar order may be passed in respect of the present applicants who stand on the same footing as that of the accused no.8.

4. The learned A.P.P. submits that no specific and independent role is attributable to the present applicants which would distinguish their cases from that of the accused no.8.

5. Considering all the aforementioned aspects, though it is a matter of record that the age of the accused no.8 was more than 80 years, whereas the age of the present applicants may not be the same but each of them is more than 65 years old, even the applicants deserve to be given the same treatment. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in judgment and order dated 29.11.2018 in Cri. Revision Application No. 222 of 2004 in respect of the accused no.8 even the present revision application deserves to be partly allowed.

6. The revision application is partly allowed. The conviction of the revision applicants is maintained, however the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court is modified as under:

"The revision applicants are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period already undergone and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months."
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 05:03:05 :::

4 36 cra 224.04.odt

7. Criminal Application No. 192 of 2019 is disposed of.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mub ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 05:03:05 :::