Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2869 of 2006 Revisionist :- Dev Narain & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Bhawan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1. None is present on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised list/call. Heard learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred by Dev Narain & Sant Ram against State of U.P. & Arvind Kumar challenging the judgement and order dated 03.12.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Court No.13, Shahjahanpur as well as order dated 06.04.2006 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur, whereby revisionists Dev Narain and Sant Ram Bharat were convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. one year rigorous imprisonment to each and the appeal was dismissed.
3. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that revisionists Dev Narain and Sant Ram Bharat were in jail from 01.03.2006 and before that from 03.12.2004 to 16.12.2004 and the judgment was passed on 06.04.2006. Hence, revisional court has directed that the imprisonment already served out by the revisionists be counted.
4. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agra Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502, State of Maharashtra vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC) and Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107, has held that while the appellate jurisdiction is co-extensive with the original court's jurisdiction as a appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is concerned. The revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute it's own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.
5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old and the revisionists are also old persons, hence a lenient view may be taken.
6. Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of facts. Hence this Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned courts below.
11. The Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
12. The revision is dismissed.
13. Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of court below be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court which shall be kept on record by the office.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 SKD