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


B. & Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 742 of 1987 [2005] RD-AH 6778 (2 December 2005)


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.1

           Criminal Revision No.742 of 1987

Baran and others   . . .  . . Vs.  . . . . . .  .State of U.P.& another.


Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is a revision against judgment and order dated 28.3.1987 passed by Sri R.P. Singh, then VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal no. 72 of 1986, Baran and others Vs. State of U.P.

The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that  on 29.8.1983 at 7 about A.M. in village  Bharvahia police station Sahjanwa district Gorakhpur a cow of the opposite party no.2 had entered into the field of the revisionists and so they had beaten  it  and when wife of the complainant had forbidden them from doing so they abused her  and caused injuries to her. Thereafter on the  report of opposite party no.  2 a case  under sections 323/504 I.P.C. was registered  against the accused revisionists and since the F.I.R. for non-cognizable offence was registered, the complainant opposite party no.2 filed a complaint  against the accused persons and in that complaint  the learned Magistrate, after hearing, convicted the accused under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.125/- each. It was further provided  that in the case of default of payment  of the amount of fine the accused shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused were acquitted  in respect of the  charge under section 504 I.P.C. and aggrieved with that order  of conviction the accused persons filed Criminal Appeal no. 72 of 1986 which was heard and decided by Sri R.P.Singh, then VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. He confirmed the conviction order passed against the accused persons and also confirmed  the fine imposed upon them. Aggrieved with that order the  accused  have filed this revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The learned counsel for the revisionists failed to point out any illegality in the orders of the  courts below. He submitted that the parties belong to one family and the amount of fine  imposed on the revisionists is excessive and so it should be reduced. I do not find any force in this contention. A sum of Rs.125/-  has to be paid by each of the accused revisionists as fine for the offence  punishable  under section 323 I.P.C. and no substantive sentence of imprisonment has been awarded  to them. As such the learned  Magistrate himself  had taken a lenient view  while awarding the fine and that order has been confirmed by the appellate  court and I find no justification for interference with the orders of the courts below.

The revision, in this way, has got no force and it is accordingly dismissed. The revisionists are, however, allowed  four months' time to deposit  the amount of fine. In case they fail to deposit the amount of fine,  they shall have  to undergo imprisonment  as ordered  by the  trial court.




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.