CHANDAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-512
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 04,2011

CHANDAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 3.11.2010, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura, in criminal appeal No. 34 of 2006, Chandan v. State.
(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Mathura convicted and sentenced the appellant Chandan under sections 323 and 325 Indian Penal Code, vide his judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 rendered in the criminal case No. 759 of 2005, State v. Chandan. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the appellant Chandan under section 325 Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. two thousand and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. He further sentenced the appellant under section 323 Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. five thousand and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months. Against the judgment and order rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mathura, which was ultimately transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura. The appeal was taken up by Additional Sessions Judge on 3.11.2010, but on that date none was present for the petitioner. Consequently, the learned appellate court, after hearing the Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) and perusing the record, held that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was physically handicapped. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further found that the judgment and order rendered by the Magistrate was based on evidence on record and it was not proper to reject the testimonies of the witnesses only on the ground that they were interested witnesses.;


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