1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO: 178 /2003
1) Suresh s/o Rambhau Todewar
Aged about 36 years.
2) Vinod s/o Rambhau Todewar
Aged about 26 years.
3) Manohar s/o Rambhau Todewar
Aged about 38 years.
All R/o Vyad Bujruk Tah. Saoli
Dist. Chandrapur P.S. Pathari.
.. APPLICANTS
versus
State of Maharashtra
Through PSO, Pathari
Dist. Chandrapur. .. RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for the applicants is absent.
Mr. A S Sonare, APP for Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 05th December,2008
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The applicants and their Advocate is absent. Heard Shri
A.S.Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. By this Revision Application, the revision-applicants are
challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:07:27 :::
2
judgment and order dated 01.10.2003 passed by the learned 3rd
Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Criminal Appeal
No.33/1997, confirming the conviction recorded against the
Revision-applicants ( original accused Nos. 2 to 4) in Regular
Criminal Case No.97/1994, which was decided by learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class Mul, on 27.6.1997. The Appellate
Court had confirmed the conviction u/s 324 of the Indian Penal
Code in respect of revision-applicants/original accused nos. 2 to 4
– and sentenced them to suffer RI for one year
ig with fine, in a sum
of Rs. 250/- each, in default of payment of fine, further RI for
one one each, for offence punishable under section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. I have perused the impugned judgments and orders
passed by the Courts below, with the assistance of learned APP.
4. It does appear that there was direct evidence of an eye
witness as against revision applicants which is referred to in para
nos. 16 and 17 to the impugned judgment and order of the lower
Appellate Court. Injured witness (PW 2) specifically deposed
about the altercation which he had with Vinod Todewar (revision
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:07:27 :::
3
applicant no.2) on the pretext of returning the engine of Luna
and a bicycle. The evidence that Revision applicant- Suresh
Rambhau Todewar ( original accused no.2) was having a bicycle
chain in his hand and other accused had sticks in their hands and
they had assaulted, consequently, the said prosecution witness
Vinod sustained injuries on his hands. The Appellate Court
observed that the evidence of injured witness-Vinod in the case
remained unshattered in the cross-examination. Further, it is
observed that Kishor (PW 3) also corroborated the version of Vinod
(PW 2) regarding the incident of assault on the head of Kishor;
while other accused were beating his brother. Considering the
direct evidence of injured witness which appears to have to been
corroborated on material particulars, it cannot be said that
miscarriage of justice has resulted from the impugned judgment and
order, by maintaining conviction against the revision applicants.
5. At the cost of repetition, I have to say that revision
applicants as well as their Advocates are absent at the time of
hearing of this Revision.
6. In my opinion, in view of Section 403 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, at the hearing of Revision, no party can claim right
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:07:27 :::
4
to be either personally heard or by a Pleader before any Court
exercising the powers of revision as it is option of the Court to
hear parties.
7. After hearing the learned APP, I do not find it appropriate
to wait indefinitely till Revision applicants appear through their
Advocates, that too at their convenience, particularly when no
application has been filed before this Court for adjournment of
hearing nor any adjournment has been sought by any oral request.
8.
For the above reasons, no interference is called for. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court do not
require any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Revision Application is dismissed.
JUDGE
sahare
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:07:27 :::