IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Revision No. 173 of 2008 Iswar Singh Manral W/o Sri Swaroop Singh R/o Village Manar (Batuli Banj) P.S. Lohaghat, D istrict Champawat. ...…………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ...…………. Respondent Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2004, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, in Criminal Case No. 180 of 2003, against accused / revisionist Iswar Singh Manral, under Section 387 of I.P.C. 2) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the State, and perused the record. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2001, complainant Naveen Chandra Kharakwal (P.W. 3) lodged the first information report at police station Lohaghat, informing that he got a letter demanding ransom of ` 20,000/-. Said letter contained name of one Nagesh Basu. On the basis of the report, Crime No. 107 of 2001 was registered against Nagesh Basu, and matter was investigated. On investigation, it was found that said letter was sent by accused / revisionist Iswar Singh Manral, who was arrested on 09.05.2001, at 11:45 P.M., as he attempted to come to the complainant to get the amount. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Iswar Singh Manral. The trial court examined P.W. 1 Devki Nandan Kharakwal, P.W. 2 Ashok Kumar Dikitia, P.W. 3 Naveen Chandra Kharakwal, P.W. 4 Constable Yogendra Dutt, and P.W. 5 V.C. Pant (Investigating Officer). The evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and opportunity to adduce evidence in defence was given. The trial court after hearing the parties, found accused guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 387 of I.P.C., and after hearing on sentence, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, and directed to pay fine of ` 2000/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 07.06.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, in Criminal Case No. 180 of 2003, Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2004 was filed by the convict (present revisionist) before the Sessions Judge, 3 Champawat. Said appellate court after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 12.08.2008. Hence, this revision. 4) I have gone through the lower court record and the evidence adduced by the witnesses. I do not find any illegality in the order of conviction passed by the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charge of offence punishable under Section 387 of I.P.C. As far as sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and direction to pay fine of ` 2,000/- is concerned, the same also appears to be reasonable. 5) Therefore, this court finds no force in this revision, which is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Since the revisionist is in jail, a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned with the observation that if the revisionist has served out the sentence awarded against him by the trial court, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. (Misc. Application No. 04 of 2011 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. January 06, 2011. H. Negi