RAKESH S/O CHOTTE LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-121
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 29,2013

Rakesh S/O Chotte Lal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revision has been directed against the concurrent judgment of conviction of revisionist. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide his judgment dated 1.7.2004, found the revisionist guilty for violation of provisions of Section 10 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and sentenced him for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- fine, in default of which, additional fifteen days' simple imprisonment was awarded. This judgment of learned Magistrate was challenged in appeal no.28 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who after hearing the appeal on merits, affirmed the order of conviction and sentence, as afore-mentioned. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist has come up before this Court.
(2.) On the basis of a report submitted by the Station Officer, Kankhal in crime no.151 of 1996, learned District Magistrate, Haridwar, in exercise of powers u/s 3 of the Act, initiated proceedings against the revisionist. That case no.8/97 was heard by Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh, the then District Magistrate, Haridwar, who vide his judgment dated 10.3.1999 passed the order of externment against the revisionist for a period of six months. Since the revisionist did not comply with the same, so he was got arrested by the police and subsequently a chargesheet was submitted against him u/s 10 of the Act. That case was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, who punished the revisionist as afore-stated.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order of District Magistrate dated 10.3.1999 as also the consequent judicial orders, passed by the courts below, for the violation of order of District Magistrate. It was argued that the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) of the Act and the provisions of Rules 5 and 13 of the Rules, which have been framed under the Act, have not been complied with. In addition, it was argued that the provision of Section 62(2) of Cr.P.C., also remains un-complied with. With the result, the revision deserves acceptance because the conviction orders passed by the judicial courts is vitiated for the reason that they were passed on account of non-compliance of order dated 10.3.1999.;


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