Criminal Revision preferred by Roshan Lal against conviction and conviction under Section 379 I.P.C. The High Court found no illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision was dismissed, and any stay order is vacated.
Revision dismissed. Any state order stands vacated. Record transmitted to lower court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1449 of 1999
Revisionist :- Roshan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- B.N. Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1-Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar, holding brief of Sri B.N. Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondent and perused the record.
2-This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 15.7.1998 in criminal case no.1063 of 1993 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat and order dated 01.07.1999 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat whereby convicting the revisionist under Section 379 I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
3-Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without application of mind.
4-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
5-From perusal of the record, it transpires that on the point of fact, both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact and the view taken by both the courts below is plausible view, hence no interference is called for in the revision.
6-According to prosecution case, on 6.2.1991, from the possession of the revisionist and Raj Narain thirteen bundles of wire of forest department loaded in tractor trolley, bearing registration no.50 H.L. 1622 Escort was recovered. P.W.1-Shiv Shankar and P.W.2-Lal Chand were the eye witnesses of the case. First information report was lodged under Section 379 I.P.C. Charges were framed against the revisionist and statement under Section 313 was recorded. After hearing both the parties, the impugned order was passed and the revisionist was convicted by the trial court for two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 I.P.C. Against that order, criminal revision was filed and the revisionist was convicted
and sentenced under Section 379 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the revisionist shall further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Hence this revision.
7-From perusal of the record, it transpires that Rs.5,000/- has already been deposited by the revisionist by Book no.1063/93 dated 11.4.2001 before the 1st A.C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat and rest of the amount of Rs.5,000/- was stayed by this Court.
8-On the point of sentence, maximum lenient view has been taken by the appellate court, hence no question arises for reducing the sentence of the revisionist.
9-This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
10-Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
10-Copy of this order along with lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 379 I.P.C. passed by the lower courts are meritorious to be set aside in criminal revision.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Roshan Lal
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
