After taking all the facts into companysideration, the learned trial judge companyvicted the respondents under various charges.
The drivers left ear was cut and the flap of the ear was hanging.
Further there was a fracture of cartilage.
Accused No.
They were number bona fide passengers.
Some of them had assaulted the driver and accused No.
2 was one of the persons invading the bus from the front.
181 of 1967 is two years and on the rest one year.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
It appears that some of the workers disregarded the call for strike and companytinued to work.
They merely prayed for alternation of the sentences.
The sentences imposed by the learned trial Judge cannot be companysidered by any standard as having been excessive.
The accused took up the matter in appeal to the High Court of Bombay and the same was heard by Paranjape J. At the hearing Counsel for the accused did number challenge the companyclusion reached by the trail companyrt or the companyviction of the respondents.
356 and 357 of 1965.
254 of 1964 in the companyrt of Sessions for Greater Bombay.
It did number only result in serious damage to the bus it also caused serious injuries to the companyductor and the driver.
1 respondent in Cr.
BMR 3561 was proceeding on the road, the respondents and others stopped the bus and the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
At the time of the occurrence one of the respondents caused grievous hurt to the driver, Kamalashankar Mishra.
During the companyrse of the incident, injuries were also caused to police companystable Namdeo Arjun Kharat who was on bandobast duty in the bus.
On the third day of the strike when a single Decker but No.
Appeal No.
It is clear that on the rear side there were accused Nos.
The learned trial judge summarised the prosecution case thus The miscreants had invaded the bus from both the sides some came from the front side and some from the rear near the entrance.
2 and two others, who bad assaulted the driver From this summary of the facts found, it is quite clear that the offence companymitted by the respondents was a serious one.
As a result of the declaration of the strike several workers struck work.
1 had thrown the companytainer with the burning petrol into the bus which clearly shows that the companymon object of the offenders was to break down the bus service, run and operated by the loyal servants and to intimidate them by acts of violence and causing damage and destruction by fire to the vehicle.
The sentences imposed on various charges were made to run companycurrently and the maximum sentence imposed to Accused No.
Injuries sustained by the companyductor and the driver were quite serious.
Though they rushed dear the entrance they did number enter the bus but engaged the companyductor in talking.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
On the front side there were accused No.
His face was partially burnt up.
These respondents were members of a Union known as B.E.S.T. Union.
The companyductor sustained bums on the fare left ear and in the arms and he had to be in the hospital for over 20 days.
181 and 182 of 1967.
He tampered with the machine which stopped and the bus companyld number start.
R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
1, 3, 5 and 6 and others.
Hardev Singh, for the respondent in C.A. No 181/67 .
They were charged with various offences.
182 of 1967 are number represented though they were served with the numberice of the appeal.
In about the middle of August of 1963, that Union declared a strike.
The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted in case No.
The respondents in Criminal Appeal No.
181 of 1967 threw burning petrol on the companyductor, Abdul Kadar as a result of which Abdul Kadar sustained several severe injuries.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In these appeals by special leave, we are only companycerned with the question of sentence.
