Decided on November 09,1994



NEELAM SINGH, J. - (1.)This Criminal Revision is directed Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30th June '88 passed by one learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in C.R. Case No. 565/87 convicting the accused petitioner under Section 355 I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for three days and also against the order so passed on 24.1.89 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1988 upholding the judgment of conviction so passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in C.R. Case No. 565/87.
(2.)The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner Shri Pradip Barua, Advocate's Clerk as claimed slapped Shri Nila Kanta Neog, Advocate of Jorhat Bar when the said Advocate was sitting in the Bar Association Hall in his professional robe. It transpires that after evaluating the evidence available before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused petitioner of his committing offence coming under the purview of Section 355 I.P.C. which was mainly on the basis of the evidence adduced by the lawyer concerned and other persons present at the time of slap so given by the Advocate's Clerk to the Advocate in the Bar Library premises itself. The petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal which was so also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat as detailed above and the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat was so affirmed. Against the impugned judgment, this Criminal Revision is preferred under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. by the accused Shri Pradip Barua, Advocate's Clerk on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.
(3.)Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has erred in upholding the order so passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and atleast could have exercised the powers given under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 1973 and instead directing the petitioner to pay a fine, he would have been directed under the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as to execute bond a for one year for maintaining good behaviour and conduct which would have in the present circumstances restored the good relation between the parties. It was further claimed that the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court rather lacks reformative spirit. In all fairness, it is submitted that though the witnesses have in course of trial supported the prosecution story with regard to this petitioner giving a slap on the lawyer concerned but in the background of the facts and circumstance of the case atleast a modification should have been made by the learned Appellate Court in the sentence so awarded which is imposition of fine of Rs. 500/-.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.