IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 176/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Ratikant & Another …….Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent None for the revisionists. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. 18th November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision is directed by the revisionists Ratikant and Ram Kishan @ Krishna Avatar Gupta against the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tehri vide his judgment and order dated 25.2.2005, which has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide his judgment and order dated 15.9.2006 2. Facts, in brief, are that a chargesheet was submitted by the police against both the revisionists for the offences of Section 323, 504 & 506 IPC on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Gopal Sharma on 31.12.1997. The incident is of 21.12.1997 when at about 11 am, Gopal Sharma demanded his money back from Ratikant, then the latter along with his companion Ram Kishan abused and assaulted him with criminal intimidation. Criminal Case No. 627/2004, State v. Ratikant & Another, ended in their conviction under Section 323 IPC, while they were acquitted under Section 504 & 506 IPC. But the learned Magistrate did not find it apt to pass any sentence of imprisonment or fine and thought it fit that bare admonition for the offence would meet the ends of justice. Even this order made the revisionists disgruntled and they preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 8/2005, 2 wherein on 15.9.2006, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of the Trial Magistrate. 3. Today none appeared on behalf of the revisionists even in the revised call up to 4 pm. So, this Court has gone into the merits of the case and considered the entire facts and grounds of the revision, and finds that there appears to be no material irregularity, illegality or incongruity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. A little discrepancies here and there are noticed which are bound to occur in every criminal case where the witnesses are not tutored and they have been cross-examined in the unusual surroundings of a court room at the hands of a Senior Counsel. So, these discrepancies are ignorable. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below are very much sound and reasoned and the same do not call for any interference by this Court in this revision. 4. In the result, the revision being meritless is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below are affirmed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 18.11.2011 Prabodh