RAJESH SWARUPCHAND KANKARIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-20
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 20,2017

Rajesh Swarupchand Kankaria Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.M.BADAR, J. - (1.) By this revision petition, revision petitioners / original accused nos.1 to 3 are challenging the judgment and order dated 17th February 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal bearing no.71 of 2011 filed by them, so also the judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC, Vadgaon Maval, Pune, on 29th January 2011 in Summary Criminal Case No.575 of 2006.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, it is apposite to reproduce operative portion of the judgment and order dated 29 th January 2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Vadgaon Maval, District Pune. It reads thus : " ORDER 1) Accused Nos.1 to 3 viz. Rajesh Swarupchand Kankaria and Swarupchand Rupchand Kankaria, are hereby convicted U/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable U/sec.354 r.w.34 of Indian Penal Code. 2) Both are sentenced to suffer 2 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 8 months. 3) Accused No.2 Dinesh Kankaria is hereby convicted U/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable U/sec.323 r.w.34 of Indian Penal Code. 4) He is sentenced to suffer 2 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo the simple imprisonment of 8 months. 5) Accused nos.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable U/sec.504 and 506 r.w.34 of Indian Penal Code. 6) The amount of Rs.15,000/- be given to the complainant Sunita Bedmutha as a compensation out of the total fine amount U/sec.357(2) of Cr.P.C. after appeal period is over. Rest of the fine amount be credited to government, as per rules. 7) Bail bonds of all accused, stands forfeited. 8) Dictated and pronounced in open court. 9) Copy of judgment be given to accused persons free of costs." Similarly, it is also apposite to quote the operative part of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, on 17th Feb 2017 allowing the appeal filed by revision petitioners / original accused partly. The same reads thus: " ORDER 1) The appeal is partly allowed. 2) The judgment and order dated 29.01.2001 passed in Summary Criminal Case No.575/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadgaon Maval, Pune, stands modified as under : i) The accused no.1 Rajesh and accused no.3 Swarupchand are convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default they shall further undergo to the rigorous imprisonment for eight months. ii) The accused no.2 Dinesh is convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months. iii) The sum of Rs.15000/- out of the aforesaid fine amount, on realization, be paid to the informant Sunita towards the compensation as per section sub section (1) (b) of section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the remaining fine amount be credited to the State. iv) Excess fine amount Rs.4000/-, if paid be refunded to accused no.2 Dinesh Kankaria. 3) Since the appellants/accused are present for hearing the judgment, they are directed to surrender themselves to receive the sentence. Accordingly, conviction warrant be prepared and issued. 4) Copy of judgment be given to the appellant forthwith." It is, thus, clear that so far as the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC is concerned, conviction and sentence imposed on revision petitioner nos.1 and 3 / original accused nos.1 and 3 came to be confirmed by the appellate court. Fine imposed on revision petitioner no.2 / original accused no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC came to be reduced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,000/-, maintaining the substantive sentence of imprisonment and by holding him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. It is, thus, clear that revision petitioner nos.1 to 3 / original accused nos.1 to 3 are taking exception to their conviction for offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 323 of the IPC and resultant sentence imposed on them. For the sake of convenience, revision petitioners shall be referred to in their original capacity while deciding the instant revision petition.
(3.) Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that first informant / PW1 Sunita Nandkishore Bedmutha is residing with her husband PW5 Nandkishore Bedmutha at Bhangarwadi area of Lonavla in Pune District. Her husband Nandkishore Bedmutha runs a grocery shop at Indrayani Nagar of Lonavla. Kundanmal Bedmutha - father-in-law of PW1 Sunita Bedmutha resides at the first floor of two storeyed building situated near Jain Mandir, at Gaothan of Lonavla. It is the case of the prosecution that as Kundanmal - father-in-law of PW1 Sunita was residing separately from her, either PW1 Sunita or her husband PW5 Nandkishore used to reach the tiffin to him by visiting his house at Gaothan area of Lonavla. The alleged incident happened at the ground floor of the property, which is standing in the name of Kundanmal Bedmutha.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.