- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been filed by accused Gulab Chand, Dinnu and Ishwar Dayal challenging the order dated 4th February, 1984 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, dis missing the criminal appeal No. 72 of 1983 preferred against the order dated 12th April, 1983 convicting the appellant Gulab Chand under Sections 323/34, 326 and 452,ipc and convicting accused Dinnu and Ishwar Dayal under Sections 323, 326/34 and 452,ipc sentencing them to 6 months RI under Section 323,ipc, 18 months RI and fine of Rs. 200 for offence punishable uffder Sections 326/34 JPC and 9 months RI for offence punishable under Section 452, IPC.
(2.) LIST revised. None appears for the revisionists. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. In the grounds of revision it is stated that courts beiow failed to appreci ate the evidence on record properly and have arrived at perverse findings. After having gone through the judgments passed by the Magistrate as also by the Additional Sessions Judge, I find that both the courts below discussed the evidence and arrived at correct conclusions. The findings do not suffer from any error much less any ille gality to calf for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The incident had taken place in the year 1983. The revision is pending since 1984. After such a long time it would not be proper to send the accused to jail.
(3.) IN my opinion the sentence of fine in lieu of sentence of imprisonment, will meet the ends of justice. The revision is partly allowed. The revisionists are sentenced each to fine in dicated below instead of sentence of rigor ous imprisonment.;