VISHNUDAS @ VISHNU S/O RANGRAO DARADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38999




                                                   -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
                                       -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