Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1255 of 2002 Revisionist :- Sanjay Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Shri Ausim Luthra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi is present and learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 19.08.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ferozabad in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2000 whereby the appeal was dismissed and upheld the judgment and order dated 10.05.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozabad, in Case No.1732 of 1999 by means of which, the revisionist was convicted and sentence to undergo 3 months imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 92 of the Factory's Act and in default of payment of fine the accused has to undergo further 2 months simple imprisonment.
Learned counsel representing the revisionist has informed this court that the revisionist was in jail for a period of approximately 13 days. He further contended that the court below has not appreciated the evidence or erred in not appreciating the evidence. This court is not an appellate court. The revisional court cannot appreciate the evidence led before the court below.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it, hence, no interference is called for by this court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist has further argued that looking to the age and position of the revisionist and taking into account that the incident is more than 17 years old and has come for hearing after 17 years of the filing of the revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the revisionist is on bail vide order of this Court dated 02.09.2002 i.e. last 17 years and has already settled with his family and it will be harsh to send him after more than 17 years from the date of bail granted by this Court.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into fine.
After hearing the learned A.G.A., representing the State, Shri Ausim Luthra counsel for the revisionist and also examined the grounds taken in the present Criminal Revision. In my opinion the judgment impugned does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, which may call for any interference by this Court. The revisional court cannot reappreciate the evidence.
However, after considering the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist, the rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into a fine of Rs.15,000/- deposited within a period of three months and it shall go to the State.
In default of payment of fine as directed above, the revisionist shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as order passed by the lower Appellate Court.
In view of above, the revision is partly allowed.
Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozabad, for its compliance.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Zafar