Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 254 of 2002 Revisionist :- Teeka And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Raju Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None is present in the revised list, whereas learned AGA is present for the State.
Heard learned AGA for the State.
This revision has been filed by the revisionists Teeka, Laddu, Gyasi and Bhanwari against the judgement and order dated 20.02.2002 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1997 connected with Criminal Revision no. 353 of 1997, partly allowing the appeal and confirming the conviction passed by ACJM-IVth, Mathura, in Criminal Case no. 243 of 1995 convicting the revisionist under sections 323/34, 325/34 IPC and modifying the sentence by directing the revisionist to remain under probation for a period of one years by executing the personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and executing two security bonds for each, further directing to deposit Rs. 4000/- each as compensation to the victim within seven days in the court.
Aggrieved by the said judgement, this revision has been filed and the impugned judgement has been challenged to be illegal and not sustainable under law. There was contradiction in the statement of true witnesses and also with the contents of the F.I.R.. After granting probation, the revisionists were also directed to deposit Rs. 4000/- each by way of compensation. The compensation amount has been awarded illegally and is too severe. It also appears that with the lapse of time which is about 17 years, this revision has become already infructuous.
There appears to be no material illegality and irregularity in impugned judgement, nor there is any jurisdictional error, revision lacks merit, hence dismissed, at admission stage.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Bhanu