Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mehesh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 833 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 6532 (10 April 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.11

Criminal Revision No.833 of 1989

Manish ...Vs.. State of U.P.


Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi,J.

None is present for the revisionist even on the revision of  list.

Heard Sri N.D.Rai learned A.G.A. representing the State.

Revisionist Munish was convicted by the trial court u/s 381  I.P.C. for committing theft of Rs.15897/- from the safe of the complainant's shop.

The facts narrated  are that the revisionist Munish went to his master's  house in the morning and  asked him  whether he would accompany him  for  Budaun;  that the complainant  went inside the house to take the permission of his father; that when the complainant came back in his  drawing room, he found that the revisionist was not  there and the key of the safe which was kept in the  complainant's bag, was  also missing. The bag was kept in the  drawing room where the revisionist remained sitting. The revisionist thereafter took the key of the shop from  Karan Singh on the pretext that he would  clean the shop;  that after taking the key of the shop  the revisionist removed Rs.15897/- from the safe of the shop. The trial court convicted the revisionist for the offence u/s 381 I.P.C. and sentenced him to   two years' R.I. and also imposed  a fine of Rs.2000/-.  The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.43/88 by his order dated 22.5.89. Hence this revision.

One of the  grounds mentioned in the memo of revision is that  the judgement is against the  weight of the evidence on record. In the case in hand, P.W.1 Hari Bhagwan Agarwal, P.W.2. Indra Pal   Sharma,   and P.W.3  Sri K.R.Bedwal  have supported the prosecution case. The question of fact cannot be re-agitated in revision. The appraisal of evidence, in a revision petition is not permissible. The trial court as well as the appellate court both  have arrived at a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the revisionist by appraisal of evidence. Such a concurrent finding cannot be  disturbed. The learned  appellate court has discussed  all the points raised  by the  appellant and has given  valid reasons for upholding the judgement and order of conviction. I see no illegality and impropriety in the judgement passed by the  appellate court and there appears no irregularity in the proceedings of trial court. Hence the  order of conviction upheld  by the appellate court warrants no interference.

Considering the quantum of the amount stolen and that more than 20 years have passed from the date of  occurrence,  I deem it proper that the  sentence of imprisonment awarded for  two years  be reduced to 3 months.

I, therefore, partly allow the revision, reducing the punishment of imprisonment from 2 years  R.I. to  3  months  R.I.  No interference  in order of fine.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.