IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 222/2003 Rajendra & Others ……… Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ………. Respondents None for the revisionists. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. None for the private respondent no. 3. 28th November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 97/2003, Shivcharan v. Rajendra & 3 Others, whereby the said revision has been accepted, and the judgment & order dated 20.1.2003, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, was set aside. The learned Sessions Judge remitted the case back to the Magistrate with certain observations, and directed to rehear the parties and pass the judgment afresh. 2. It is pertinent to mention that none turned up on behalf of either the revisionists or the private respondent no. 3 even in the revised call up to 3.45 pm. So, this Court has given hearing to learned Brief Holder for the State and gone through the impugned judgment and order. Also perused the grounds of revision. 3. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out certain incongruities and discrepancies in the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate, which were very glaring. Learned Sessions Judge also noticed that the judgment and order of the Magistrate contained no point or 2 points for determination and reasons for the decision as envisaged under Section 354(1)(b) of CrPC, which has been reiterated for compliance in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mukhtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 995 ACC Page 341. 4. The grounds of revision are very shall, stereotyped and mechanically drafted. No substantial or fatal irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the impugned judgment and order. 5. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the learned Sessions Judge was well within his powers to see whether any miscarriage of justice or gross illegalities have been effected in sum totality in the appreciation of prosecution version, and if it was so, then the learned Sessions Judge is empowered to exercise his powers as vested in him under the Code, which has been rightly done by him in the instant case by setting aside the judgment and order of the Magistrate. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this revision has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 97/2003, Shivcharan v. Rajendra & 3 Others, is upheld. Stay order granted by this Court on 15.12.2003 is hereby vacated. 7. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 28.11.2011 Prabodh 3