- (1.) G. D. Dubey, J. It is a revision against the order of 12th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut. The revisionist had been convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 each for offence punishable under Section 323, I. P. C, read with Section 34, I. P. C. and in default of paymant of fine the revisionist were asked to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine so realised Rs. 500 was to be paid to the complainant Prasanna Kumar Sharma. The trial Court i. e. Judicial Magistrate First had convicted the appellants-revisionist under the aforesaid section and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000 each. This had been reduced as stated above, but the conviction order of the lower Court was maintained.
(2.) THE facts relating to this revision are very brief. It is alleged that at 10. 30 a. m. on 29th September, 1982 Prasanna Kumar was going to the shop of black-smith for taking his Garasa. When he reached in the 'gali' of 'lohar' in village Khetabari the revisionists had assaulted him with Lathi causing him injuries. THE injured was taken to the P. L. Sharma Hospital at Meerut. Dr. H. P. Sharma had examined him at 5. 10 p. m. and had found 8 injuries on his person. A non-cognizable report of this case was lodged in P. S. Delhi Gate district Meerut. After investigation charge sheet was sub mitted against the revisionist. Only one point has been pressed before me. It has been urged that the non-cognizable report and the G. D. entry relating to this occurrence had not been proved and produced before the lawer Court. This has prejudiced the revisionist. The revisionist could have show by this non-cognizable report that the whole prosecution story was not believable. This point was raised before the two Courts below and they had repelled it by stating that originally the case was registered under Section 323, I. P. C and that is why the case was registered an non- cognizable offence. The two Courts below also came to the conclusion that the first necessity of the reporter to get the injuries examined by a doctor and that is why he went first P. L. Sharma Hospital and after that lodged a report. It was held by the Court below that the lodging of the report at 6 p. m. same day was fully ex plained and the delay was justified in the circumstances of the case.
(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the lower Court itself had doubed the propriety of the police in investigating the case. In these circumstances it was essential for the prosecution to have proved the report. I do not find any material on record to show that the attention of the maker of the report was drawn towards the report and any inconsistency in the facts reported in the report and the facts reported before the Court below was brought out in the cross-examination. The report was relevant only for corroborating or contradicting the statement of the maker of the report. The maker's statement was not contradicting in an examination thus simply because the non-cognizable report has not been produced before the lower Court the revisionist cannot be prejudiced unless they show that by pro duction of the report the Court would have come to a different conclusion. The two courts below had come to the conclusion that the version given by the injured and the witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence. They had placed implicit reliance on the evidence produced by the prosecution. Hence I came to the conclusion that by non-production of the non-cognizable report the revisionists were not prejudiced. There is no error in the order of the lower Court. The revision is rejected. Revision rejected. .;