- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 1984 passed by IIIrd Addi tional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, dismiss ing the appeal preferred against the order dated 21-6-84 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghaziabad convict ing the accused in criminal case No. 769/81 under Sections 379 and 4111. P. C. and sen tencing him to undergo R. I. for one year under Section 379 I. P. C. and 2 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 411 I. P. C. and in case No. 770/81 convicting him under Section 411 I. P. C. sentencing him to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the trial Court committed illegality in convicting the ac cused on the strength of the evidence of hostile witness Om Pal. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge would show that he had found the evidence of Raj Singh reliable. He also held that the evidence of Raj Singh was substantially corroborated by the evidence of Om Pal. He only could not name the accused as they were totally strangers. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the evidence of the eye-wit nesses was reliable. They also considered the evidence of S. I. Kedar Singh, Sri YK. Singh S. D. O. Hydel, S. K. J. K. Chauhan and other witnesses. The learned counsel could not point out any illegality in the finding which is based on appraisal of evidence in proper perspective. The revisionist was rightly convicted. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the incident had taken place in the year 1979 and after such a long time it would not be proper to send the accused to jail. I find force in this contention. Considering the nature of accusation and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice.
(3.) THE revision is partly allowed. THE conviction of the revisionist Rajey under Section 379/4111. P. C. in case No. 769 of 81 and under Section 411 I. P. C. in case No. 770 of 81 is maintained. THE sentence is modified as under. In case No. 769 of 81 the revisionist is sentenced to sentence already under gone and to fine of Rs. 1500/- under Sec tion 379 I. P. C. and fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 411, I. P. C. In default he shall un dergo R. I. for 6 months under Section 379 I. P. C. and one under Section 411 I. P. C.;