High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
B. & Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 742 of 1987  RD-AH 6778 (2 December 2005)
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.