IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 72/2003 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Jayendra Singh & Others …….Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the revisionists. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. 9th August, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this revision, the judgment and order dated 19.5.2003, rendered by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 16/99, Jayendra Singh & Others v. State, has been challenged. In the said appeal, the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.3.1999, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkash in Criminal Case No. 29/96 was confirmed. The said case pertains to the Crime No. 18/1994 under Section 147, 457, 353, 201, 224, 225, 504 & 506 IPC, Patwari Circle Didsari, Tehsil Bhatpari. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionists could not point out any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgments and orders rendered by the courts below. He could not show any glaring omission which has been done by the courts below in appreciation of the evidence adduced against the accused revisionists. All the grounds which are mentioned in the revision are cyclostyled, stereotyped and of routine manner and do not carry any substance and are liable to be rejected at the threshold. 2 4. At the same time, the learned Counsel on behalf of the revisionists has requested that taking oldness of the incident as well as the economic and social status of the revisionists, their sentence of imprisonment may be condoned and if this Court feels necessary then the fine may be enhanced. Learned Counsel has also apprised this Court that one of the revisionists named Jayendra Singh is a senior citizen running in his early sixties. 5. Acceding to the aforesaid request of the learned Counsel for the revisionists in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is dismissed on its merit. But at the same time, it is partly allowed on the question of sentence and the sentence of imprisonment of all the revisionists is done away with and the sentence of fine is enhanced as under: (i) Accused revisionist Dev Bahadur will deposit fine of Rs. 2000/- instead of Rs. 1000/- for the offence of Section 224 IPC. He will deposit fine of Rs. 3000/- instead of Rs. 2000/- for the offence of Section 506(2) IPC. (ii) Accused revisionists Jayendra Singh, Bharat Singh, Vijay Pal Singh and Kishan Singh will deposit fine of Rs. 2000/- instead of Rs. 1000/- for the offence of Section 147 IPC. They will deposit fine of Rs. 3000/- instead of Rs. 2000/- for the offence of Section 457 IPC. Each one of them will deposit fine of Rs. 1500/- instead of Rs. 1000/- for the offence of Section 225 IPC. They will deposit fine of Rs. 2500/- instead of Rs. 2000/- for the offence of Section 506(2) IPC. Each one of them will deposit fine of Rs. 1500/- instead of Rs. 1000/- for the offence of Section 353 IPC. 3 (iii) The fine already deposited by the revisionists will be adjusted. (iv) The aforesaid fine shall be deposited within one month from the date of receipt of this order in the trial court. 6. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below, this revision is disposed of. 7. Let the lower court record be sent back for compliance of the order. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 9.8.2011 Prabodh