Partly allowed

Chandrakant Sampat Matekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Mar 2015REVN/93/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application challenging a six-month sentence for offences under Sections 325, 323, and 504 IPC arising from an agricultural dispute, the High Court held the original sentence too harsh due to lack of premeditation. The Court quashed the sentence, directed the modification to reflect time already served and maintenance of the fine, and ordered the applicants' release.

What did the court decide?

The sentences are modified to the period already undergone; the fine is maintained; applicants are ordered to be released forthwith.

Chandrakant Sampat Matekar and Anr. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

-2))REVN93.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2015

¶6

1 Chandrakant Sampat Matekar) 2 Sudarshan Sampat Matekar ) Both residing at Jadhav Galli Islampur,Taluka Walva, ) District Sangli ) At present accused are in Sangli Central Prison, Sangli. ) .. Applicants (Org. Accused Nos.1 & 2).

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Aditya S. Desai, Advocate for the applicants Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM:-M.L. TAHALIYANI,J. DATED : -12/03/2015

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶13

Not on board. Taken on board on being mentioned for

¶14

production on the ground of urgency.

¶15

2 Admitted. Respondents waive service. By

¶16

consent of the parties taken up forthwith for final hearing.

1/4

-2))REVN93.15

3 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and

¶21

learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶22

4 The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 325 r/w 34 of IPC. They are also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 504 r/w 34 of IPC. The maximum punishment imposed on them is for the offence punishable u/s 325 r/w 34 of IPC. They are sentenced to suffer RI for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.

¶23

5 I have gone through the judgment. It appears that the dispute is regarding agricultural land. There was no premeditation and there was no intention to cause any major harm to the injured. Since the dispute has taken place in the agricultural land due to a dispute over property and civil suit is already pending, it was just and proper that the Magistrate should have exercised his powers u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

2/4

-2))REVN93.15

6 In my opinion, the sentence imposed by the

¶28

Magistrate is too harsh to be sustained. At this stage, it is brought to my notice that the applicants are in jail since 21^st of February, 2015. As such they will be completing about one month imprisonment within few days. Considering the facts of the case and the circumstances, in which the incident had occurred, as stated earlier, the exercise of powers under the Probation of Offenders Act would have been the better option. The learned Magistrate has not given any sound reason as to why he was so harsh in punishing the applicants to the extent of six months. The appellate court has also not given reasons for not exercising powers under the Probation of Offenders Act. 7 Since the applicants have already undergone sentence of about twenty two days and since they have paid the fine amount, I pass the following order:

¶29

The revision application is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants for the above stated offence is

3/4

-2))REVN93.15

maintained. As far as the sentence is concerned, it is directed that they shall undergo sentence for the period already undergone by them. The order of the Magistrate and Sessions

¶34

Judge with regard to the sentence is accordingly modified.

¶35

Fine has already been paid by the applicants.

¶36

This Court does not make any change in the fine

¶37

sentence.

¶38

The applicants be released forthwith from the prison, if not required in any other case.

¶39

8 The revision application accordingly stands

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

9 Jail Authorities and the lower Court shall act on

¶42

the authenticated copy of the judgment.

¶43

(JUDGE)

¶44

md.saleem

¶45

4/4

Chandrakant Sampat Matekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Sampat Matekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Kisan Yelne Vs Prajakta Kishor Yelne and Ors.

Anuradha Vicky Kashelkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Thandiram Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Weisser Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.

Chandrakant Sampat Matekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Satpal Singh Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Mr.Vijay Shamrao Bhoi Vs Mr.Popat Balkrushna Patil and Anr.