fc;; ®"»>'3' y ''s.^s.: a»',:l,;lsr:: ;ir,i" m' '»i^ m'ii <A Ball!l: 'c'. sv^ •li-3'1: lit Bla'n'i^ ^'i'^M.^M l©(s<^iWaai»ii'i(l^^^BlEi3<iswR.; 'Sh^Wa^ii'Mitf^^Wff^^SiiSiWJSi^SK^^ .• '^' ;-s^Ci'bninatS8avisK>niiNiB(gi|t2fl8B i'2fl%il;.;':c ;:":•.•':•;:::\ xmscMW ^^f^MeinB^ ^^^^^^^^ :<fcq^:^o^ecl^eBout^3%;'<(WW^..,. - ^/, RESPONOENT StcEteofIChlwt-t'M^Ni ShrrSyr^kawtM^r^coin|elfop^t^igi^©^^ •Slwi^Vai^how'!A;1®awjjcihflri^lKi^^ s:£RI»ll(^fiiiBJ saMlMt^Ki^lS81»ISN^ilte;aitt^ i^TJBWffigMBW •3 ^^^:M.T' (».®6.201;^ Preswt revfsjon (Btses euy < orxtep {Ifflted 28.6.20^1 tpeteset^ly f;ire'l' AdicWtierwl 3ud^,tAalmxs(sm^mSrmme^^^^^^ yhec<>nyicttohcn^®enteBieeKfl^^u^^ ^yic|e''rte:;;^ud3H^t^(la^ ^N!B.22^t|)^?i1|B<r|i^|||^^|g||e|je^|'l^^ ':411il®3M^WilNIWNiNiM^incl *m^SS^|iN^lr^li^RtwN8^^N'®BH^^ of Rs. ^y^h^ m defw uiictei^o^igw^iM^mpRwnn i^ifeip^^8^ ^^^^wi^eiv^w^wft<^!^l'9:^^ewe^^ ^. •.;•!"' ^;:-:;:. :' ; :.' •:^ .. - ':.: ;'1 :1: ?. ' •2.;/.:'BMfeR;;fC^'M:^the:i@ase®eS^tt^ jGBilia^, f(|M^ ^^^ t^ f^i^^©^^^:soine^(^;<tr!ia|BOTl|s^ ^6upta'.(P^^INel?w^.;irr®s1-e|^ .m^ortndum''^?jtP-^:r^Ki^^^eff1-^^ ^xS^^^toSei^^ea^W^^Q.^ ^ ^. 3. So ^to hold the ciGQi^/appticenr^^^^^^^ Iwis exmnined as inony as 8 witnessas in swpfwt of its case. Stffhmtentof the <^d»?cl/appti<^i^d Sectien 3t3 of 1'he Cwle of Criminal Precedu in «»h»chlie denied the chcpg® Iwetled fl^nnst- hlm eN pteoEted tiis innocence and false impUccrt-ion in the ease. 4. By the jtKl^arl- arri orter dat^ ^ ..^.;':::' '-..'.•; :'':- . / '.^ Aftcgistrate has conviGl'ed y5yhe cBecused/cpptfGarrt" for fte offences punishnbte tffidep Sections 4®74 380 of •(•he Indian Penel Code and Jics ^itenced him te^ umia^ ng^^ imprwinment fopthreeyedRs.andtopcy^ine of Rs. 80 eeett, in default of p^merrt' <tf fine 1x> fu^heri^®^rigortw imprisonment for one ntwrfh,on each count". In on apped, the ap{wttete Court hos affiwed tte <OTte^ 1-teOTce.theppesentrieMsion. 5. Cwmsf^ for the api^jccffrt- iaitsnits that theugh fhe api^Ctffit has^^^^ m^ ®it1re serri-ence but h® is cholllenging the iffipuy^judgmerrhentherits,^ thwe is absdutely no WKience on r^ord wan^^ convtetionunderSections457A 380oftheIndCT)PenatCode. He sutenits thcct proseartion has utt^erly faited to p^ cotteet any motertat to show the inwlvCTner^ of the accuaed/q3ptfearrt-inthe<:offlay^(mQyo#fence. 6. On tte ot-hec hand, eowwet for the State supports •I'hef •.-• • ; ::: ' "^ iropuyied judginent ond submits thoit jmpugned juelgment is in accordonce with Itwtand there is no inftrnMtyhithesome. 7. I have hecffd counsel for the papttes and pwt.ased tft® m<)#erial G^tabtebnreeoN hwliNi^jydgm '.\ )^1 ^s^ yf&^. 8. From the recoNl} it is cteor thot based on the memonmdym of the occused (Ex.P^), theft aptieles i.e. Rs.2,500/- <nid some gotd omunerrts were seized freimhimyids- Ex. P-6. These stolen ort'teles haws bCCT» duly Ktenti'fieel ty Ftohul ©upta^W-l) A Ndhi ©upta(PW-2) vide Nentificatkm memo No. Ex.P-4. Both thig seiaaipe witnesses have trfw ^i : . -: ; . : • su(qx>rted the prosecutions cqse. 9. I find no reoswi to mterfepe with the welt pecesone* ordep passed by the Magistpffte flmd thcrt- of Rewsiemil Courf. BoththecoirtsbetowofterdueeonsttlereEtiorioftheevidwice hasgiven the concurrent fincUng. Th®said ftading is strictly in accordance with low and there is no infirmity in the same. ^ tO. The revisionfaitaand tSflKaeordmglycHaBtssed. ^.. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker '^' • '>:.'