Skip to content


State Vs. Atmaram Vaikunth Bhende - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 148 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1956Bom671; 1956CriLJ1195
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 477A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 32 and 423
AppellantState
RespondentAtmaram Vaikunth Bhende
Appellant AdvocateK.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- indian evidence act, 1872 section 24: [v.s. sirpurkar & deepak verma,jj] dying declaration - multiple murders by accused - dying declaration not implicating one accused - evidence of eye witnesses however completely fixing his criminal liability ocular evidence found credible held, absence of his name in dying declaration would be of no help to accused. .....fine. the accused has also stated that out of rs. 3,000/-which is said to have been misappropriated, rs. 2,000/- have been recovered from other parties, who had also received some benefit out of the amounts misappropriated.we are informed by the learned government pleader that the total amount misappropriated is about rs. 14,000/- and that about half of this has been recovered. the learned magistrate has awarded four months' r.i. in default of payment of fine imposed on each count, evidently in order that the accused may be induced to pay at least a part of the amount misappropriated by him. in doing so, we cannot say that the learned magistrate has exercised his discretion wrongly. no sufficient grounds have, therefore, been shown for our interfering with the order passed by the learned.....
Judgment:

Chainani, J.

1. In this case, the accused has been convicted under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, on three charges and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to four months' rigorous imprisonment, on each charge. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The accused has requested that the substantive sentences passed upon him may be enhanced, but the sentences awarded to him in default of payment of fine may be reduced. He has stated in his appeal memo that if the substantive sentences are enhanced, he will get the advantage of remissions, to which he would be entitled under the Jail Rules.

3. We do not think that this would be a suffi-cient ground for reducing the sentences awarded to the accused in default of payment of fine. The accused has also stated that out of Rs. 3,000/-which is said to have been misappropriated, Rs. 2,000/- have been recovered from other parties, who had also received some benefit out of the amounts misappropriated.

We are informed by the learned Government Pleader that the total amount misappropriated is about Rs. 14,000/- and that about half of this has been recovered. The learned Magistrate has awarded four months' R.I. in default of payment of fine imposed on each count, evidently in order that the accused may be induced to pay at least a part of the amount misappropriated by him. In doing so, we cannot say that the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion wrongly. No sufficient grounds have, therefore, been shown for our interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

5. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //