- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 925 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2019 Vishnudas @ Vishnu S/o Rangrao Darade Age-45 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o Daradwadi, Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed -- APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Bardapur Police Station, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist.Beed -- RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.M.A.Aher, APP for the Respondent/State. ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The Applicant is challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Criminal Appeal No.15/2008, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to confirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Ambajogai in SCC No.2311/2001. The said judgment of conviction came to be passed in Crime No.66/2001 at Bardapur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable u/s 353, 341 and 504 of the khs/Aug.2026/57 2026:BHC-AUG:38999 - 2 - IPC. 2. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was prosecuted before the learned J.M.F.C. in SCC No.2311/2001 for the offence punishable u/s 353, 341 of the IPC. The learned J.MF.C., after recording the evidence, and on hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, has convicted the Applicant for the offence punishable u/s 353 and 341 thereby sentencing him to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer SI for one month for the offence punishable u/s 353 of the IPC and also sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 341 of the IPC and pleased to direct him to suffer SI for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay, he shall suffer SI for 8 days. 3. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the Applicant had preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge vide Criminal Appeal No.15/2008. The learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 11.02.2019 was pleased to dismiss the appeal, thereby confirming punishment awarded by the learned Trial Court in SCC No.2311/2001. 4. The learned Advocate Mr.Jadhavar submits that both the orders passed by the Sub Ordinate Courts are perverse. According to him, khs/Aug.2026/57 - 3 - the learned Sub Ordinate Courts have failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and have arrived at an erroneous conclusion. According to him, no evidence was led by the Prosecution to show that the complainant or anyone of his Company was knowing the accused. The Investigating Officer has also not conducted the Test Identification Parade and in absence of such T.I.Parade, the case of prosecution is vitiated and hence the conviction cannot be based upon the evidence led by the prosecution side. He submits that to attract Section 353 of the IPC, Prosecution has to prove that the accused is aware of the fact that the complainant is a Public Servant and he is discharging his duties. There is also requirement of establishing the fact that the Accused has used force to deter the public servant from discharging his duties. It is missing in the evidence of the Prosecution side. Therefore, the prosecution has virtually failed to establish the guilt of the accused before the Trial Court. Hence, he submits that the order of conviction as well as dismissal of appeal are erroneous and requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned APP submits that the offence in question took place in the year 2001. The Line Helper namely Vaijnath Pandharinath Navande working in the MSEB Branch, Ghatnandur submitted a report on 26.11.2001 that he was out for collecting the khs/Aug.2026/57 - 4 - arrears and therefore alongwith staff members, he went to the house of the accused in Jeep bearing No.MH-14-9550 and at that time, when the arrears were being collected, they also noticed that there is theft of electricity by placing of hook on live wire of the MSEB pole. When they were performing their duties, at that time, the Appellant/accused came there. At that time, the accused alleged to have prevented and stopped them from going towards the electricity pole. He alleged to have abused them and also started assaulting them. 6. The learned APP for State further states that the Complainant as well as other staff members were on duty of collecting the arrears and the appellant/accused was very much aware of the fact that the Complainant and others are from the Office of the MSEB and they are performing their duties. He further submitted that the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses. P.W.NO.1 is the complainant and P.W.Nos 2 to 4 are eye witnesses and P.W.No.5 is the Investigating Officer. Their evidence has not been shakened even by the defence side despite lengthy cross examination. He, therefore, submits that the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., thereby convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable u/s 353 as well as u/s 341 is correct and proper and requires no interference. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the instant khs/Aug.2026/57 - 5 - Criminal Revision Application. 7. On hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the record available before this Court, it is clear that the Applicant has been prosecuted u/s 353 and 341 of the IPC. On perusal of the judgments of the Sub-Ordinate Courts, it discloses that the prosecution side has examined in all 5 witnesses, out of which 3 witnesses are eye witnesses. There being a direct evidence to prove that the Appellant has assaulted and used the force to deter the public servants from discharging their official duty and therefore the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the Applicant. The judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court further discloses that informant Vaijnath alongwith staff members were on duty to recover the electricity bill arrears at village Daradwadi. The prosecution, by leading cogent evidence, thereby proving panchanama of spot of incident as well as presence of accused and the witnesses on the spot, proved the fact that the Applicant is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 353 as well as 341 of the IPC. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the learned J.M.F.C. rightly convicted the Applicant. Both the orders passed by the Sub Ordinate Courts discloses that the same have been passed after proper consideration of the evidence and hence required to be khs/Aug.2026/57 - 6 - maintained by this Court. There is nothing to suggest that this Court should exercise powers Under Section 397 OF Cr.P.C, Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the instant Criminal Revision Application discloses no strong and valid grounds to entertain same. Thus the Criminal Revision Application is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 31.03.2008 is hereby maintained. However, as regards sentence instead of sending the Applicant to jail, it would be appropriate to modify the sentence thereby directing the Applicant to pay the fine of Rs.3,000/- within a period of 4 weeks before the learned J.M.F.C. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 8. Hence, Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed in above terms. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Aug.2026/57