S. K. Kaul, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision aginst the judgment of Sessions Judge, Lucknow, who had confirmed the sentence and conviction awarded to the revisionist under Section 392 IPC to undergo three years' R.I. and under Section 25, Arms Act to undergo one month's R. I., the sentences having been made concurrent.
(2.) AT the time when this revision was moved, Hon'ble K. B. Srivastava, J., had issued an enhancement notice rejecting bail to the revisionist. In that view of the matter, the criminal revision coupled with notice of enhancement is being heard today by us. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. Bus No. USQ 7798 was plying between Lucknow and Hardoi on 30th August, 1969. The driver of this bus was Qazi Mohammad Saeed. He took the bus from Charbagh. The bus stopped at Kaiserbagh. Thereafter it stopped at Daliganj Bridge. When it passed through the Clock Tower and reached Hardoi Road, the present revisionist along with Munna and Mukhtar are said to have boarded the bus at the aforesaid Clock Tower. When it reached near the culvert of Imambara, the revisionist and his companions started brandishing their knives and started looting the passengers. Qazi Mohammad Saeed stopped the bus and after getting down shouted for help. The revisionsist and his companions also got down and started running. Passengers took up chase and ultimately the present revisionist was arrested along with the knife Ext. 1. The passengers and the driver took the revisionist along with his knife to the police station where a report was lodged. Investigation was done in the usual manner. Prosecution was sanctioned by the District Magistrate in connection with charge of Arms Act and thereafter the accused revisionist was asked to stand his trial under Section 394 IPC as well as under Section 25, Arms Act. The defence of the revisionist was that no doubt he had boarded the bus, but he denied having brandished the knife or having looted the passengers. According to him, on getting down, he sat for urination and then he was arrested by the passengers on suspicion. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that charge under Section 392 IPC alone was made out. He also found that charge under Section 25 Arms Act, was made out and as such, he sentenced and convicted the revisionist as above.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, an appeal was taken to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, on an appraisement of evidence, concurred with the findings of the Asstt. Sessions Judge confirmed the sentences and conviction awarded to the revisionist and rejected his appeal. We have heard Sri B. C. Sinha, learned cousel for the revisionist. In our view, this revision has no force.;