- (1.)THIS criminal revision has been preferred by petitioner Radhey Shyam under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.6.99 passed by JMFC,Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.2268/96 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 393 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I.for one month. In Criminal Appeal No. 61/99, learned Ist ASJ, Chhindwara by judgment dated 18.2.2002 has confirmed the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence passed by JMFC, Chhindwara.
(2.)THE prosecution case, in brief is that on 15.10.84 at about 6.45 PM when complainant Sheikh Mahboob was going Parasiya to a grocery shop, it is alleged that near Bhansen village the petitioner met him and by pointing knife and by putting extortion he tried to commit robbery but at that time due to hue and cry of complainant at the relevant place, one Sabbo and Hariprasad came and they caught hold of petitioner and thereafter a report was lodged at the Police Chowki Neutan against the petitioner. The police registered a Criminal Case under Section 393 IPC against the petitioner and petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 393 IPC and has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
This revision has been filed on the following grounds :-

"A. That, the judgment and conviction dated 18.2.2002 passed by learned First ASJ, Chhindwara in Criminal Appeal No.91/99 as well as the judgment dated 28.6.99 of learned JMFC, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.2268/96 is bad in law and facts because both the Courts below committed grave error in not considering properly the evidence of prosecution witnesses from which it is very well clear that petitioner is not guilty of the offence and deserves to be acquitted from the alleged charge; B. That, the learned Courts below should have seen that there is material contradiction and omission in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore, prosecution failed in proving its case against the petitioner, the learned Courts below committed error in not relying upon the defence witnesses; C. That, both the Courts below committed perversity in not taking into consideration the evidence of complainant who in his evidence denied from the contents of FIR and FIR was not proved by him, even he denied to identify petitioner and his involvement in the offence. Therefore, on perusal of the sole evidence of complainant, petitioner deserves to be acquitted; D. That, the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court ought to have held that evidence of other prosecution witnesses is not corroborated from the evidence of complainant, therefore, in view of non-corroboration of evidence the petitioner cannot be convicted for the alleged offence; E. That, the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court must have seen that the seizure of alleged knife from the petitioner was not duly proved, even the amount which the petitioner attempted to rob was not proved, therefore, due to omission of said material evidence the conviction of petitioner for the alleged charges is against the law; F. That, both the Courts below have also not seen that petitioner is facing trial since 1984 and he has already become harass, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the alleged charges by giving benefit of "Probation of Offenders' Act"; G. That, the sentence imposed by both the Courts below is excessive and deserves to be reduced by passing a judgment to sentence him for the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice."

(3.)I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the original record of trial Court as well as of appellate Court.