Raj Mani Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the revision is disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) THIS Criminal Revision under Section / of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been preferred by the accused -revisionist -Liyaqat Ali Khan against the judgment and order dated 07.4.2008 passed by Sri Seth T.N. Tandon, the then XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 55 1996 (Liyaqat Ali Khan v. State of U.P.) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 14.8.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 2949/95 (State v. Liyaqat Ali Khan) arising out of Crime No. 1908/95, under Section IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held the accused guilty under Section IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The relevant facts giving rise to the present revision may be summarized as under: Qyamuddin (P.W. 2) on 12.11.1985 at about 18:10 hrs. lodged a written report (Ext. 1) at P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Faizabad with the allegation that he had married his sister Asifun Nisha to the accused -Liyaqat Ali Khan, S/o Mohd. Musharraf, R/o 103, Mohalla Rishi Tola, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabads sometimes nine months back prior to the date of incident. He had spent amount on presents and dowry as per his financial capacity but when his sister went to her matrimonial home, her husband and his family members expressed their dissatisfaction over the dowry he had presented. They put a fresh demand of motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/ - in cash from her in the form of dowry. The complainant on 12.11.1985 had gone to the house of accused but the accused did not permit his sister to meet him. They had illegally confined her in a room and they were adamant to kill her for dowry. On the written report of the complainant, the police of P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad registered a case under Section IPC. Sri Krishna Gopal Tripathi, the then Section I., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad investigated the case. He after investigation of the case submitted charge -sheet (Ext. Ka -2) against the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court. He was charged by the Trial Court under Section IPC. The accused had denied the charge levelled in the trial. The prosecution in support of charge levelled against the accused had examined Khan Mohammad as P.W. 1, Quamuddin as P.W. 2, Asifun Nishan as P.W. 3 and Sri Krishan Gopal Tiwari, Section I. as P.W. 4. P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 fully supported the prosecution case while Sri Krishan Gopal Tiwari, Section I. (P.W. 4) who was the Investigating Officer proved the papers prepared by him during the investigation and was filed before the Trial Court. The accused thereafter examined by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section of the Code. He had stated that the prosecution witnesses had given false statement against him. He, however, examined Aqeel Ahmad as D.W. 1. The learned Magistrate after proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in a well considered judgment held that the accused was guilty for the offence under Section IPC and consequently vide judgment and order dated 14.8.1996 convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1996 before the learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad which was dismissed by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad vide judgment and order dated 17th April, 1998.
(3.) THE accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge has filed the present Criminal Revision.;