Bombay High Court

ARJUN RUSHUMRAO MULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The revision court quashed and set aside the judgments, acquitting the appellant of all offences.

Summary

Arjun Mule was convicted under IPC sections 279 and 337 and several provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for an accident in which his auto‑rickshaw allegedly had a bicycle tied to its rear, causing a collision with a motorcycle. He appealed, obtaining a partial acquittal, but the remaining convictions were upheld. In a criminal revision under CrPC 397, he contended that the prosecution failed to prove he was driving rashly or negligently and that there was no evidence the bicycle was actually tied to his vehicle. The High Court examined the testimony and found no proof of rash/negligent driving nor any seizure record of a bicycle on the auto‑rickshaw. Consequently, the Court held the convictions illegal and quashed the judgments, acquitting the applicant of all charges and ordering the return of bail and any fine paid.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the appellant drove the auto‑rickshaw in a rash or negligent manner sufficient to attract IPC 279 and 337
Whether there is evidence that a bicycle was tied to the appellant’s auto‑rickshaw as alleged
Whether the convictions under the Motor Vehicles Act provisions are sustainable in the absence of such proof

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 397
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 279, 337
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 133 read with 177, 134(a) read with 187, 134(b) read with 187, 3 read with 181

Subjects

criminal revision
quash
conviction
rash driving
negligent driving
Motor Vehicles Act
IPC 279
IPC 337
evidentiary insufficiency

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40489
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.117 OF 2025

ARJUN S/O RUSTUMRAO MULE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. POLICE STATION
(GRAMIN), PARBHANI
…..
Mr Kunal R. Yadav, Advocate h/f Mr Rushikesh R. Shinde, Advocate
for Applicant
Ms B. B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent/State
…..
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

DATE : 07th SEPTEMBER 2026

P. C. :

1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.

2. This is a motion for speaking to the minutes of the order

dated 27/08/2025. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that,

inadvertently, in title clause as well as in paragraph Nos.1, 7 and 8 of

the said order, name of Advocate holding for Advocate for applicant is

mentioned as “Mr Kunal Kale”, which should be “Mr Kunal R.

Yadav”. He further submits that, inadvertently, the year in the date of

this order is wrongly mentioned as ‘2025’ which should be ‘2026.

Accordingly, he prays for corrections.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(2)

3. In view of above, necessary corrections, as aforesaid, be

made in the order dated 27/08/2025 and the corrected order be

uploaded.

4. This motion stands disposed of.

[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(3)

(This order dated 27/08/2025 is modified in view of order dated 07/09/2026 on
a motion for speaking to the minutes of the order)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.117 OF 2025

DATE : 27th AUGUST 2026
P. C. :

1. Heard Mr Kunal R. Yadav, learned Advocate holding for

Advocate Mr Shinde for applicant and learned APP Ms Gunjal for

respondent/State.

2. The applicant is challenging the impugned judgment and

order dated 27/02/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Parbhani below Exh.22 in Criminal Appeal No.18/2017,

whereby the said appeal came to be partly allowed and the judgment

and order dated 21/01/2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Parbhani, below Exh.45 in S.S.C. No.352/2013 came to be

modified.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(4)

3. By the Judgment dated 27/02/2025, learned Additional

Sessions Judge acquitted the applicant to the extent of conviction and

sentence under section 133 read with 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

However, the remaining judgment of conviction and sentence passed

by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class came to be maintained,

wherein the applicant came to be convicted for the offences punishable

under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer

simple imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in

default to pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The

applicant is also convicted for the offences punishable under Section

337 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment

for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine, to

suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. He is further convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the

Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to

pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one day. He is also

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 133 read with

Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.100/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one

day. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section

134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(5)

to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer simple

imprisonment for five days. He is further convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay

fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for five days. All the sentence

directed to be run concurrently.

4. According to the prosecution, the crime was registered on

the basis of information given by informant, namely, Prakash

Manikrao Dudhate, alleging therein that, on 06/01/2013, when he

along with one Ramkishan Sahebrao Lombade proceeding towards

Parbhani on motorcycle from Gangakhed, one Piaggo Auto Rickshaw,

without having registration number and having a bicycle tied to its rear

side, came from back side in a high speed. Said Auto while overtaking

their motorcycle, given dash to them. Resultantly, motorcycle got

entangled with bicycle tied to Auto and they fell down from

motorcycle. Both of them sustained injuries. The said Auto fled away

from the spot Ramkishan Lombade followed said Auto by another

motorcycle passing thereby, and caught the auto-rickshaw. After

inquiry, the driver of the auto-rickshaw discloses his name as Arjun

Rustumrao Mule (present applicant). Thereafter, complainant took the
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(6)

accused to police station and lodged complaint, which came to be

registered as Crime No.03/2013 for the aforesaid offences.

5. After the investigation is complete, charge sheet came to

be filed against the accused, and thereafter, charge was also framed for

the aforesaid offences. After recording the evidence of six witnesses,

the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the applicant for the offences

punishable, as aforesaid.

6. The applicant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment

and order of conviction, preferred Criminal Appeal No.18/2017 before

the learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court, after hearing

both the parties allowed the appeal partly, thereby modifying the order

of learned Judicial Magistrate to the extent of only acquittal from the

conviction and sentence under Sections 133 read with 177 of motor

vehicle act and maintaining the remaining conviction awarded under

the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

7. Mr Yadav, learned Advocate for the applicant submits

that the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not

taken into consideration various omissions and contradictions. The

testimony of PW-3/Purushottam Keshavrao Choudhari clearly

indicates that the applicant was not driving the said Auto that struck
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(7)

the complainant at the time of incident. The learned Courts below also

did not take into consideration that the alleged spot is in high density

area and there is no eye-witness to the incidence. According to him,

the prosecution case is that the bicycle which was tied to the auto-

rickshaw from rear side came into contact with the motorcycle of the

complainant, and therefore, the accident took place. However, the

prosecution, in its panchnama, did not record that the said bicycle was

recovered or seized from the spot or even that the auto-rickshaw was

found to be tied with the said bicycle when the auto-rickshaw came to

be caught by the pillion reader of the complainant.

8. Mr Yadav learned counsel for the applicant further

submits that the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have

not considered the evidence in proper perspective and given

unnecessary weightage to the testimonies of the witnesses, who have at

all not supported the case of prosecution in reality. He then submits

that, as per the version of the prosecution witnesses, the bicycle was

tied to the auto-rickshaw of the present applicant, however, there is no

evidence or the material to suggest that such bicycle was tied to the

auto-rickshaw of the applicant when the said auto rickshaw stopped by

the prosecution witness. Lastly, learned Advocate for the applicant

submits that, giving dash while driving the vehicle is another aspect
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(8)

and driving a vehicle in rash and negligent manner is another aspect.

In order to prove the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the

Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the

applicant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The

evidence nowhere suggests that the vehicle being driven in rash and

negligent manner. Hence, learned Advocate for the applicant submits

that there is a gross illegality in the order passed by the learned lower

Courts. As such, this Court, in the exercise of its revisional

jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may

call for the record to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality and

propriety of the finding, sentence or order.

9. Per contra, learned APP Ms Gunjal vehemently opposes

the the present revision application. She submits that the learned

lower Courts have passed well reasoned orders after considering the

entire evidence on record and the same warrants no interference by this

Court.

10. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective

sides, I have gone through the record. It is clear that the prosecution

witnesses have stated that the applicant, while driving the vehicle, had

given dash to the motorcycle of the complainant, due to which the
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(9)

informant and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. However,

there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that, the applicant

was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In order to

attract the provisions under Sections 279 of the Indian penal Code, the

prosecution is required to prove that the applicant was negligently and

rashly driving the vehicle. After carefully examining the prosecution

witnesses, it is found that it is nobody’s case that applicant, at the time

of accident, was driving his auto in a rashly and negligent manner.

11. It is a matter of record that the applicant faces allegations

of having tied a bicycle to the rear side of his auto-rickshaw, which

subsequently came into contact with the motorcycle of the informant,

causing the rider to lose balance and fall. However, it is for the

prosecution to establish that the said bicycle was really tied on the rear

side of the auto of the applicant. Neither the panchnama of the seizure

of the vehicle/Auto, nor any of the prosecution witnesses who

identified the applicant as the driver have stated that a bicycle was

found tied to the Auto at the time of vehicle was intercepted. In

absence of such important evidence, the learned Trial Courts have

committed illegality in convicting the applicant. When the orders

passed by the lower Courts suffer from illegality, this Court has
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(10)

revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash and set aside such orders.

12. In that view of the matter, I found that the learned Trial

Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed error in law,

thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under

Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences

punishable under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. To attract the

provisions of Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for

the prosecution to prove that the accused acted in a rash and negligent

manner, thereby endangering human life or the personal safety of

others. In absence of record to suggest that the applicant was rashly

and negligently driving the vehicle, the learned Trial Courts have

committed mistake in convicting the applicant for the said offences.

13. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to exercise

revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of Criminal

procedure, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment

and orders. Hence I pass the following order :-

ORDER

(I) The criminal revision application is allowed.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

117.25revn speaking
(11)

(II) The judgment and order dated 21/01/2017, passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani, below Exh.45

in S.S.C. No.352/2013 and the judgment and order dated

27/02/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Parbhani below Exh.22 in Criminal Appeal No.18/2017, are

quashed and set aside.

(III) The applicant is acquitted of the offences registered under

Crime No.03/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with

Section 181, Section 133 read with Section 177, Section 134(a)

and Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles

Act.

(IV) The bail bonds executed by the Applicant and his surety

stand discharged.

(V) The fine amount, if any deposited by the Applicant

before the trial court, is ordered to be refunded to him.

(VI) The Record and Proceedings of the lower Court be

returned.

[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…