Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 220 of 2002 Revisionist :- Kale And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None is present on behalf of the revisionist in the revised call. Learned A.G.A. is present.
From perusal of order sheet, it appears that on earlier occasions also i.e. on 01.10.2018, 29.11.2019 and 11.12.2018 none was present from the side of revisionists to press this revision. It also appears that the revisionists have already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.02.2002, hence, they are not interested in disposal of this revision.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 08.10.1998, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut convicting the revisionists for three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 198 A U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, passed in Criminal Case No. 1016 of 1994 (State vs. Kale and others). Against the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, a criminal appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court numbered as 111 of 1998 (Kale and others vs. State). Vide order dated 08.02.2002, passed in the aforesaid criminal appeal, whereby the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut.
It appears that order of conviction and sentence has been passed and upheld by both the courts below after due appreciation of evidence available on record. The very fact that the learned appellate court below has upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, goes to show that the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in passing the order of conviction and sentence was sustainable and there was no illegality or perversity in the same.
The revision is against the two concurrent judgments of the courts below and I do not find that there is any material irregularity, illegality, impropriety or any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders.
The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, it is made clear that the bail, earlier granted to the revisionists are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
Let a copy of the order be sent to the court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 sailesh