- (1.) V. P. Mathur, J. This revision was taken up for hearing after the revision of the list and learned counsel for the opposite- party Ravel Singh only appears. There is no one on behalf of the revisionist.
(2.) I have perused the two judgments of the Courts below and the record of the original case, which has been summoned. The prosecution story was that Ravel Singh was the owner of shop No. 133/33, Transport Nagar, Kanpur. He had given one of the shops to Shiv Balak Awasthi at a monthly rent of Rs. 250 about 2 years back. Shiv Balak paid rent in the month of April and on 4-4-83 vacated the shop and handed over possession to Ravel Singh. On 6-5-83 Ravel Singh went to the shop and found Ravi Shanker in illegal occupation. He learnt that Ravi Shanker had broken the lock and forcibly occupied the shop. On being asked to explain as to why he had occupied the shop he threatened and abused Ravel Singh, upon which he lodged an F. I. R. 7-5-83 and gave notice on 30-6-83 under Section 441. Since it was not served, therefore, another notice was sent on 7-2-84 and thereafter he filed a complaint on 9-3-84. In support of the prosecution version, Ravel Singh, Satyapal Singh and Jogendra Singh appeared as P. Ws, 1, 2 and 3 respectively. On behalf of the accused Shiv Balak Awasthi and Sumer Singh entered the witness-box. The learned Magistrate considered the entire evidence on record and came to a finding that the prosecution version was correct and convicted Ravi Shanker both under Sections 448 and 506, IPC and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and to six months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count.
(3.) AN appeal was preferred, being Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 1984 and came up for hearing before Sri G. A Farooqui, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur. The learned Sessions Judge assessed the evidence that was brought on the record and heard learned counsel on both the sides and came to the conclu sion that the Magistrate's finding of fact was justified on the evidence on record and did not call for any interference by him. Therefore, he confirmed the order of conviction both under Sections 448 and 506, IPC but directed that instead of undergoing the sentence of imprisonment outright, the accused should be let off on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000 and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to be of good behaviour and keep peace for a period of two years under the supervision of the Probation Officer appointed by the State Government. He also directed that he should appear to receive the sentence whenever called upon by the court during this period. Against this order the present revision has been filed. I was taken through the record of the case including the evidence that was brought on the record, by the learned counsel for the opposite-party Ravel Singh and I find that the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below one after the other should not be disturbed in revision. I also do not find anything illegal in the orders passed by the courts below. As such this revision has no force and is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the appellate court on 23-5-85 stands confirmed. Revision dismissed. .;