Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3238 of 2008
Revisionist :- Shiv Charan & Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K.S. Bais,C.B. Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri S.A.N. Shah, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that non- bailable warrant has been issued against the revisionists by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2018 due to non appearance of counsel for the revisionists. He further submitted that even he has filed Vakalatnama, but his name was not printed due to which he could not appeared before the Court.
It is next submitted that revisionist No. 3- Hari Ram has already been died on 1.3.2015 and his death certificate dated 29.1.2015 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. The revision stands abated against revisionist No. 3.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 4.6.2008 passed by S.D.M. Meeraganj, Bareilly, by which punishment of two years simple imprisonment and penalty of Rs. 2000/- has been imposed and order dated 17.11.2008 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 6 Criminal case No. 165 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 235 of 2002, under Section 122-D of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, P.S. Meerganj, District-Bareilly, by which conviction was reduced from two years to six months maintaining the penalty of Rs. 2000/-.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned court below has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionists. He further submitted that the statement of P.W.-1 has not been considered by the court. He further submits that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are not a previous convict. Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail and have already undergone certain period in jail and requested that their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
The learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 as well as of this Court in the case of Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011 decided on 31 October, 2011, Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010 decided on May 29th May, 2012 and Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005 decided on 4th August, 2014, in which, Apex Court as well as of this Court without disturbing conviction, released the accused on the basis of sentence undergone.
Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed maintaining the conviction of revisionist Nos. 1, 2 and 4, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 2,000 within one month from today. In case fine is deposited within one month, revisionist Nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall not be arrested and in case the amount of fine is not deposited within one month, court below shall proceed to take action against the revisionists in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Sartaj