RAMESH ABHIMAN PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46353


                                                                            342.19revn
                                                  (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      919 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 342 OF 2019

                                   RAMESH ABHIMAN PATIL
                                           VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 …..
                 Mr Mohit S. Shah, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent/State
                                                …..

                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 01st OCTOBER, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated

                 19/11/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Dhule

                 in Criminal Appeal No.86/2013, whereby the appeal came to be

                 dismissed, thereby maintaining conviction order dated 04/09/2013,

                 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Court

                 No.7, Dhule in R.C.C. No.216/2011.        Vide the said impugned

                 judgment and order, the learned JMFC, Dhule convicted the applicant

                 for the offence punishable under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code

                 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to

                 pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer simple

                 imprisonment for one month.
                                                             342.19revn
                                   (2)

2.             Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP

for respondent/State.


3.             Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

learned JMFC as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge have erred

in convicting the applicant. According to him, the prosecution has

failed to prove the ingredients of Section 430 of the IPC for which the

applicant has been convicted. He then submits that the applicant had

not opened the valve of the main water pipeline of the Dhule

Municipal Corporation, thereby causing loss of water to the

Corporation. According to him, PW-1 has not supported the case of

the prosecution by admitting in the cross-examination that he has not

seen the applicant while removing the said valve of the pipeline. He

further submits that there is delay of 13 days in registering crime

against the applicant and the prosecution has not explained the said

delay. According to him, there is no independent witness to show the

ownership of the land of the accused. He then submits that the charges

under Section 430 of the IPC are at all not proved by the prosecution

against the applicant and thus, the learned Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court committed a grave error in convicting the applicant.

He, therefore prays for allowing the instant criminal revision

application.
                                                             342.19revn
                                  (3)

4.          Per contra, learned APP for the respondent/State strongly

opposes the instant criminal revision application. He submits that the

prosecution has fully established the guilt of the applicant and the

learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have

rendered the judgments considering the evidence in proper perspective.

According to him, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments

of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellant Court, and

therefore, the same are required to be maintained.



5.          After going through the judgments of the learned Trial

Court as well as the learned Appellate Court and the evidence

produced before this Court, it is clear that the applicant alongwith

some persons was seen running after opening 200 mm wash out valve

of water pipeline of municipal corporation and the said water was

diverted and accumulated in a pond/reservoir and the same was taken

to the agricultural field of the accused by pipeline with the help of

submersible electric pump. The said water pipeline was carrying the

drinking water for the residents of the Dhule City and was diverted

towards a reservoir constructed in agricultural field. The prosecution

also proved seizure of certain incriminating material. In that view of

the matter, the prosecution has fully established the guilt of the
                                                              342.19revn
                                  (4)

applicant before the Court for the offence punishable under Section

430 of the IPC.


6.          Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned

Trial Court, thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable

under Section 430 of the IPC, the applicant had also approached the

learned Sessions Court by filing criminal appeal. However, even the

learned Sessions Court, by relying upon the evidence brought by the

prosecution before it, dismissed the said appeal, thereby confirming

the judgment and order of the learned JMFC.            Thus, there are

concurrent findings against the applicant. During the course of the

hearing, no illegality in the judgments of both the Courts below was

pointed out to this Court. This Court has the jurisdiction to decide a

revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. In numerous judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

observed that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and it

should only be exercised to prevent a miscarriage of justice. After

going through the evidence and the impugned judgments of the learned

Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, I found that there is no

mistake or illegality in those judgments.


7.          In view of above, the instant revision application is

dismissed. The conviction of the applicant is maintained. However,
                                                           342.19revn
                                 (5)

instead of sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, the applicant is

directed   to   pay     compensation     of   Rs.5,000/-    to    the

complainant/Corporation within a period of four weeks.




                                   [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk