IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 79/2004 Yusuf ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ………. Respondent Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 23rd December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.5.2004, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2004, Yusuf v. State of Uttaranchal, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal of the present revisionist and affirmed the judgment & order dated 22.3.2004, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Criminal Case No. 334/2003, State v. Yusuf & Others. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, vide the said judgment & order, convicted the accused Yusuf, Iqbal @ Karigar and Rayees Ahmad @ Champion under Section 411 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year along with fine of ` 500/- each, in default the convict concerned was directed to undergone one months’ simple imprisonment. However, all the three accused persons were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. 2. Five metres of telephone cable were stolen from the telephone exchange, and soon after the theft, it was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The police after investigation submitted the chargesheet against all the three accused persons. The prosecution successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC before the trial court. All the three accused persons were, accordingly, 2 convicted and sentenced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, as stated above. 3. Feeling aggrieved, accused convict Yusuf preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2/2004 before the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 12.5.2004, whereby he affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision has been filed by the revisionist Yusuf. 4. I have gone through the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Also perused the grounds of revision. 5. The grounds of revision are very shallow, stereotyped and have been drafted in very mundane manner. No substantial or glaring irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the impugned judgments and orders. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and thereafter passed the order of conviction. As such, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court, which warrants no interference by this Court. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this revision is meritless and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 23.12.2011 Prabodh