- (1.) V. P. Mathur, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 7-11-1984 by Mr. G. K. Mathur, the then Sessions Judge of Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1983. This appeal arose out of a criminal case No. 503 of 1982 and it was decided by Mr. N. M. Lal the then I Additional Munsif Magistrate of Hathras, Aligargh on 23-7-1983. The learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist on a charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and in appeal, the judgment of the court below was confirmed and upheld in toto.
(2.) IN brief, the prosecution story was that on 26-9-80 at about 6 p. m. Niranjan Singh approached Satyadeo with a request to lend him a cycle for a short duration. This was done in presence of Totaram and Rajvir Singh at the shop of Tota Ram. The cycle was handed over, but Niranjan Singh did not return it either on that date or even thereafter and ultimately when Satyadeo made a demand of the return of cycle from Niranjan, he was told that the cycle had been handed over to Harpal Singh When Harpal Singh was approached, he denied having obtained the cycle. It may also be noted that Niranjan Singh had handed over a letter to Satya Deo in his writing to effect that he had given the cycle to Harpal Singh. Then Satya Deo lodged the first information report on 28-9-80 at 9. 30 p. m. at police station Hathras. Proper investigation was made and charge-sheet was submitted. Satya Deo entered the witness box as P. W. 1 and also examined Tota Ram (P. W. 2.) and Rajvir Singh (P. W. 3 ). Udai Vir Singh was examined as P. W. 4. He is the Sub-Inspector who conducted the investigation in this case and submitted charge-sheet. The contention of the revisionist was that the whole of the prosecution story was false and he had been implicated due to enmity. One defence witness Harpal Singh was examined.
(3.) THE two courts below came to a clear conclusion from the entire evi dence on the record that the prosecution case was satisfactorily proved beyond doubt. This revision was also admitted by me only on the question of sentence. I have been taken through the judgments of the two courts below by. the learned counsel for the revisionist, it appears that originally price of the cycle was somewhere in the vicinity of Rs. 300, but subsequently it was probably sold to Satya Deo by the original owner for a sum of Rs. 250. Of course, there is no direct evidence in this respect, but circumstances brought on the record do show this. The learned counsel for the revisionist says that if the addition to the sentence of imprisonment which the client has already undergone, some amount of fine is also imposed, it will not be treated to be an enhancement in the sentence.;