GYAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Present criminal revision was preferred by the accusedrevisionist Gyan Chand, against the judgment and order on 09.06.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, in criminal appeal no. 14 of 2004, whereby the learned appellate court rejected the appeal of the accusedrevisionist and affirmed the judgment and order dated 31.05.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, convicting and sentencing the accusedrevisionist under Sections 353 and 504 IPC.
(2.) One Ashok Kumar Sharma, Culture Jamadar, Gangori Barrier In-charge, wrote a complaint to PS Maneri on 28.09.1999, stating therein that the Gangori Barrier was closed on 27.09.1999 as usual. A taxi bearing registration no. UP-09828 came at 8:35 p.m. Two bags were kept on the rooftop of the taxi. The informant as well as his associate Kripal Singh wanted to check the bags kept on the rooftop of the taxi. Taxi driver refused the request of the forest officials to stop the vehicle. The taxi driver asked the forest officials to open the barrier. Shri Gyan Chand (accused-revisionist) who was a member of legislative assembly (MLA) from Uttarkashi constituency, alighted from the taxi. Gyan Chand slapped Ashok Sharma on his face. He (accused-revisionist) also hurled abuses at him and threatened the informant with dire consequences. The member of legislative assembly (MLA) was accompanied by two people excluding the driver. MLA (revisionist- Gyan Chand) said that the officials of forest department do not abide by anybody's instructions. MLA directed his companions to catch hold of Kripal Singh and carry him in the taxi. The board of MLA was not displayed on the taxi. It was apprehended by the forest officials that the forest produce was kept there inside the car. The barrier was forcibly opened and the car crossed the barrier on the dictates of MLA. Such report was lodged in PS Maneri on 28.09.1991, at 00:15 (12:15 A.M.).
(3.) After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the I.O. against the accused person in respect of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 IPC. Accused appeared before the learned Magistrate. A charge-sheet in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 was filed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Five witnesses, namely, PW 1 Kirpal Singh, PW 2 Pooran Das, Resin Chowkidar; PW 3 Preetam Singh, PW 4 Head Constable Rajendra Prasad and PW 5 Shiv Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi convicted the accused-revisionist under Section 353 IPC and 504 IPC. He was awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of 1000/-, in default of which, he was directed to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment in relation to offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, and nine months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which, he was directed to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment in relation to offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order of the trial court, a criminal appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which too was dismissed by the learned appellate court affirming the judgment and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. Having aggrieved with the impugned judgment of the learned appellate court, present criminal revision was preferred before this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.