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 397(1)/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been preferred by the accused -revisionist -Putti against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2010 passed by Virendra Kumar, HJS, learned Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 304/2007 (Maya Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P.) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1876/1996 arising out of Crime No. 391/92, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gazipur, District Lucknow whereby the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate has held the accused guilty under Section 452, 506(2), 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 452 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each under Section 506(2) IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 200/ - each under Section 323/34 IPC failing which to undergo further two months additional imprisonment each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while partly allowing the appeal has confirmed the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate but modified the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate under Section 452 IPC reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year to six months. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Magistrate, it appears that the finding of both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence which cannot be interfered with by this Court in revision while invoking its revisional power under Section 397 of the Code unless the finding is perversed. This Court being revisional court cannot re -appreciate the evidence at this stage.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the accused -revisionist failed to show any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. However, he submits that the accused have already undergone more than month's in jail and they are still in jail, therefore, this Hon'ble Court may take a lenient view with regard to the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.;