List has been revised. None responds on behalf of the revisionist and the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 4. Learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the State of U.P.
The revisionist by way of filing this revision has sought to quash the impugned judgement and order dated 24.2.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha in Criminal Revision No.418 of 2013 (Nafisul and others Vs. State of U.P. and another).
The revision of the opposite parties was allowed firstly; on the ground that the witnesses were present on the spot but they have not made an attempt to stop the tractor on which the stolen cut wood were being carried; secondly on the ground that on perusal of the enquiry paper No.12 b and 13 b produced by the opposite parties 'Neem' tree was not found standing on Gata No.138, so there was no question of cutting the 'Neem' tree by them. The finding recorded by the revisional court is against the face of evidence on record. Khasra of the said land clearly show that certain neem and mango trees were standing on the land in question. Photostat copy of the same has been filed along with the affidavit filed in support of this revision. It is further argued that the impugned order is palpably erroneous and against the provisions of law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
In the impugned order dated 24.2.2014 of the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha it has been mentioned that the complainant Jameel Haider was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses, namely, Safdar Ali and Sabana were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who were brother-in-law (looser) and wife of the complainant respectively and they have been found as interested witness. It has also been found that no independent witness have been examined.
In the copy of the Khasra, no 'Neem' tree has been mentioned. On this analysis, the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha has allowed the Criminal Revision No.418 of 2013 (Nafisul and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) vide order dated 24.02.2014.
"Sufficient ground: Meaning- The words "sufficient ground" used in Section 203 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction, Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B., (1973) 2 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521; See also Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430; Nagawwa v. Veerappa Shivalingappa Koujalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507; Sripat Sahai v. Ganpat Sahai, 1979 All Cr C 127 (All)."
Resultantly, the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Complaint Case No.1899 of 2013 (Jameel Haider v. Nafisul and others) suffers from no legal infirmity.
Moreover, the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha is liable to be set aside.
Resultantly, revision is liable to be allowed.
Criminal Revision is allowed.
The impugned judgement and order dated 24.02.2014 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha in Criminal Revision No.418 of 2013 (Nafisul and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) is quashed.
Order Date :- 15.7.2016 S.Sharma