In Criminal Revision No. 644 of 1997, the High Court recalled an N.B.W. order to decide the matter on merits. The Court held that as the revisionist deposited the fine of Rs. 3,000, the appeal was infructuous and disposed of without addressing charges.
Recall of N.B.W. dated 27.2.2019 and dismissal of revision as infructuous.
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. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 644 of 1997
Revisionist :- Baij Nath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Kameshwar Singh. Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A..
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contented that N.B.W. has been issued against the revisionist but the N.B.W. has not been executed till date. The revisionist is present in person before this Court and he prays to recall the order of N.B.W and prays to decide this revision on merits.
In view of the prayer made by the revisionist, N.B.W. order dated 27.2.2019 is recalled and this revision is decided on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
This revisions has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1997 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1994 dismissing the appeal of the revisionist and confirmed the judgment and order dated 27.9.1994 passed by the learned Additional C.J.M., Banda in complaint case no. 653 of 1994 under Section 323/427/506/109 I.P.C. by which the revisionist has been convicted under Section 427 I.P.C. by imposing a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine sentence of 3 months, R.I. was imposed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist has demolished the wall of the first informant in discharging his duties, as he was Secretary of the Town area, Tindwari and an order was passed by the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Tindwari, District - Banda. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that Trial court has not considered this fact that the revisionist has demolished the wall in discharging his duty relating to his post and therefore, no offence made out against the revisionist under Section 427 I.P.C.
After perusal of the evidence and material available on record it appears that trial court as well as appellate court after appreciating the evidence available on record have convicted the revisionist under Section 427 I.P.C. and sentenced him for a fine of Rs. 3,000/- Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order but as per contention of learned counsel for the revisionist, the revisionist has deposited Rs. 3,000/- in compliance of the order of the court below and therefore this revision has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
This revision is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.
Order Date :- 5.4.2019 A. Pt. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision lies since the fine amount ordered was deposited on merits?
Whether demolition of wall while discharging official duties constitutes offence under Section 427 IPC?
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
