*1* 27rev72o16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2016 BHIMRAO S/O. SITARAM NAGARGOJE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri Nagargoje Ankush N., Advocate for the Applicant. Shri M.A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/ State. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 17 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. By this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant challenges the judgment and order dated 02.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Appeal NO.19/2011 by which, the applicant’s appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and order dated 10.02.2011 passed by learned JMFC, Ashti, in SCC No.45/2006 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.200/- and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, respectively, 2026:BHC-AUG:37211 *2* 27rev72o16 came to be confirmed. 2. The prosecution case is that PW-2 Ramkisan Jaibhay is the informant, who was working as Bus Conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). On 21.10.2005, PW-2 was posted at Ashti Depot on the ST Bus bearing registration No.MH-20/D-6158, which was going to Sheogaon from Ashti. It’s driver was P.W.3 Ashok Ban. When the bus reached near Rohatwadi, one passenger rang the bell to stop the bus. P.W.2 Ramkisan got down and was returning the remaining amount to the passengers. At that time one passenger i.e. present applicant abused and slapped him on his face. The accused held his neck and dragged him. During that scuffle, uniform of PW-2 Ramkisan got torn. Another bus bearing registration No.MH-20/8410 of Ashti Depot reached there. It’s driver P.W.4 Raosaheb Yede and Conductor D.P. Jaibhay intervened. PW-2 Ramkisan came to know that said unruly passenger is drunk and his name is Bhimrao Nagargoje i.e. applicant. PW-2 Ramkisan and others took him to police station Patoda. PW-2 Ramkisan lodged report Ex.12 against him. He was medically examined by P.W.6 Dr. Taware who issued *3* 27rev72o16 certificate Ex.22. 3. After completing investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. The learned Trial Court explained particulars of charges and the applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Evidence was led and after appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court held the applicant/ accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as above. The applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that both Courts below have committed an error and rendered conviction in total contravention of law. The grounds raised by the applicant in appeal have not been properly considered by the appellate Court and without considering the said grounds, the appellant Court has dismissed the appeal. Learned advocate submits that both impugned judgments and orders are incorrect and perverse and prayed for acquittal of the accused. 5. In the alternative, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is 60 years of age and there are no previous criminal antecedents against the applicant. Therefore, if *4* 27rev72o16 this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this revision, then the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act be given to the applicant. 6. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent/ State strongly opposed the revision. He submits that evidence recorded by the Trial Court has been appreciated in proper perspective by the appellate Court. The impugned judgments are correct and proper and require no interference by this Court. According to learned APP, there being concurrent findings, therefore, the revision application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having gone through evidence on record and the impugned judgments, it is evident that the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1 Shamrao who is the panch witness, PW-2 informant, PW-3 Ashok Ban (driver of the bus), PW-4 Raosaheb Yede (driver of another bus), PW-5 Prabhakar is the Investigating Officer and PW-6 is the Medical Officer. On perusal of evidence of these witnesses, it is seen that the prosecution has proved the case against the applicant beyond reasonable doubts. Learned Trial Court, relying on testimonies of *5* 27rev72o16 these witnesses, has convicted the accused. 8. Learned Trial Court, while convicting the applicant/ accused, has observed that the informant PW-2, PW-3 Ashok Ban and PW-4 Raosaheb Yede have categorically stated about the manner in which the incident took place. They have stated that the accused assaulted the informant and at that time, the informant was on duty. The prosecution has established that the accused has caused hurt to the informant and used criminal force against the informant thereby, deterring him from discharging his duty. Learned Sessions Judge maintained the judgment passed by learned JMFC and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, by reiterating the same evidence and observing that the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has used force to deter public servant from discharging his duty and therefore, has rightly been convicted by both the Courts below. 9. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are shown to be perverse, manifestly erroneous, illegal or resulting in miscarriage *6* 27rev72o16 of justice. On independent consideration of the evidence of PW- 2, PW-3 and PW-4, I find that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse or manifestly illegal. As no illegality and perversity is found in the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Application. 10. However, the incident is of the year 2005. The applicant is presently aged about 60 years and, as stated, has no previous criminal antecedents. The offence, though proved, arose out of a solitary incident and the applicant has already faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for a considerable period. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the age and antecedents of the applicant and the long passage of time, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, I pass the following order:- (a) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. (b) The conviction of the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 of the IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is *7* 27rev72o16 modified and, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (c) The applicant shall enter into a bond with one surety for one year to receive the sentence when called upon during the above period and in the meantime, maintain peace and good behaviour. (d) Record and proceedings be returned to the Trial Court. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )