High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mehesh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 833 of 1989  RD-AH 6532 (10 April 2007)
Criminal Revision No.833 of 1989
Manish ...Vs.. State of U.P.
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.