IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 78/2001 Hayat Singh ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal ………. Respondent Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 8th August, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. .This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2001, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in the Criminal Appeal No. 13/99, Hayat Singh Chufal v. State of U.P. By the said judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh dated 17.5.1999, whereby the revisionist has been convicted for the offence of Section 406/34 IPC with a sentence of one and half year’s imprisonment, for the offence of Section 420/34 with a sentence of two years’ imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 400/-, for the offence of Section 467/34 IPC with a sentence of one year’s imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 600/-, for the offence of Section 468/34 IPC with eight months’ imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 500/- and for the offence of Section 47/34 IPC with a sentence of three months’ imprisonment. In total, the revisionist has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for five years and five months. All substantive sentences have been directed to run consecutively, and not concurrently. 2 2. One co-accused Anil Kumar Agarwal was also convicted in the same manner, but it appears that he neither preferred any appeal nor has agitated his conviction before this Court. 3. The matter in controversy pertains to a company which was functioning under the name and style ‘Moste Narayan Credit India Limited’. It invited the hill people for making term deposits with a promise to give return on the same at a very high interest, but ultimately it all proved an attempt to cheat the people. The company later-on changed its name as Sriram Finance Company, but lost the confidence of the people and an FIR was lodged against the same. The chargesheet was submitted which resulted in conviction, as stated above. Hence, this revision. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has argued mainly the grounds stated in the revision. On perusal of these grounds, as adumbrated before this Court, I find that these grounds are all hollow and shallow. There is no substance in the said grounds. Any of the ground does not indicate any material or substantial irregularity or illegality committed by the courts below and even does not point out any glaring mistake which the courts below have committed in appreciation of the evidence, which is almost documentary, adduced in the courts below. So, this way the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the revisionist prayed that the sentence awarded by the court below is unusual because it has been ordered that all the 3 substantive sentences shall run consecutively rather than concurrently. He prayed that these sentences may be directed to run concurrently. 7. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offences committed by the revisionist, this Court is of the opinion that the court below has already awarded very feeble sentence to the revisionist, who does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. So, on this score also, this revision is not worthy of acceptance. 8. Resultantly, revision is dismissed. Revisionist Hayat Singh Chufal is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded by the court below. 9. Let the lower court record be remitted back for necessary compliance of the order. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 8.8.2011 Prabodh