PHOOL SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Phool Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1909 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 8800 (9 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.11

Criminal Revision  No. 1909 of 1985

Phool Singh and another Vs. State of  U.P.

---------

Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.

This Criminal Revision  has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.1985 whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur dismissed the appeal No. 65 of 1985 and upheld the conviction and sentence passed in S.T. No. 544 of 1980 by Asstt. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for offence u/s 395 I.P.C. The revisionists were sentenced to 6 years R.I.

I have heard Sri V.K. Barnwal for the revisionists as well as the learned A.G.A. and have also perused the record. The arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists are that in view of section 9(3) Cr.P.C. the Sessions Judge,   Addl. Sessions Judge and Asstt. Sessions Judge,   all exercises jurisdiction in the "court of session"; that offence u/s 395 I.PC. is triable by the "court of Session"; he argued that since the case of dacoity was tried by the Asstt. Sessions Judge ( who was exercising jurisdiction in "court of Session") the appeal ought not to be decided by the  court of Addl. Sessions Judge (who was also exercising the jurisdiction in court of session).

Section 374 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that if the sentence passed is not more than 7 years the appeal may lie to the court of session even in case where the sentence was passed by the Asstt. Sessions Judge.

The revisionist's counsel's  another argument is that there was no sufficient material to hold the revisionists guilty u/s 395 I.P.C.

This court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the evidence. The concurrent findings of the two courts below regarding the guilt of the revisionist cannot be interfered in revision by the reappraisal of the evidence .

Lastly he argued that both of the revisionists are of the village of the complainant; that none sustained injury in the occurrence; that no medical examination of any person was conducted; that the incident took place on 12.3.1980 thus about twenty seven years back; that the revisionists are now of extreme old age hence he requests that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.

Having considered that none sustained injury in the occurrence of dacoity; that the revisionists Phool Singh and Bhola Singh belong to the village of occurrence and that 27 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence I deem it proper that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court be reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. I do so.

The revision is partly allowed as above.

Certify the order to the court below within 2 weeks.

Dt.09.5.2007

sh    

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 |

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