Himachal Pradesh High Court
Yog Raj And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 January, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R. No. : 160 of 2008.
Reserved on: 29.12.2016.
Decided on: 04.01.2017.
.
Yog Raj and others ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ... Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
of Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.
rt For the respondent : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2007, dated 28.06.2008, vide which learned Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/State, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of present petitioners by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, dated 18.08.2007, in Case No. 149-1-2005/13-II-
2006 and convicted the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498-A of IPC and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 2sentenced them to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- each under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, .
each accused was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for one month and also sentenced them to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- each under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC of and in default of payment of fine, each accused was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for three months.
2. rt As per the prosecution, complainant Usha Rani on 16.12.2005, lodged a complaint with the police to the effect that she was married to accused Yog Raj in the month of February, 2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and as no issue was born even after three years of marriage, behaviour of the in-laws of the complainant changed towards her and accused Yog Raj alongwith other co-accused started subjecting her to mental as well as physical cruelties by giving her beatings and deprived her from basic needs. It was also mentioned in the complaint that on 06.12.2005, when brother of the complainant Subhash Chand had come to meet the complainant, the accused asked her as to why her brother had come there and all the accused in furtherance of their common intention gave beatings to the complainant, causing ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 3 simple hurt to her. As per the prosecution, accused also threatened the complainant to do away with her life. It was also reported that accused demanded colour television and .
also compelled the complainant to bring money from her parents for the construction of house. On the basis of said complaint, FIR Ext. PW1/A was lodged against the accused.
Police visited the spot and prepared the spot map.
of Photographs of the place as well as compromise entered into between the parties were taken into possession along with 'danda'.
rt Complainant was thereafter sent for medical examination.
3. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence produced on record by the prosecution held that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 06.12.2005, at a place known as Sulhari, during day time, accused subjected the complainant to mental as well as physical cruelty by beating her, deprived her of basic needs, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 4 caused injury to her and also caused apprehension of danger to her life, limb or health and forced her to leave her matrimonial home. Learned trial Court also held that .
prosecution was not able to prove that complainant on the date in issue was physically abused by the accused. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by the learned trial Court that in the entire evidence of the prosecution, there of were major and vital contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and, in fact, complainant herself had rt not supported the case of the prosecution as complainant deposed in the Court as PW1 that she could not say when accused demanded dowry or money from her and in whose presence. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that she could not state when in fact accused gave beatings to her and threatened to do away with her life. Learned trial Court also held that PW2 also did not support the case of the prosecution and this witness categorically deposed that accused never gave beatings to the complainant in her presence nor she remembered as to whether any application/ complaint against the accused had been submitted by the complainant or not. Learned trial Court also held that the recovery of 'danda' was also not proved on record by the prosecution in accordance with law, as out of the two alleged ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 5 marginal witnesses in whose presence 'danda' was recovered, only one, namely, Bal Krishan was examined by the prosecution and he also did not fully support the case of the .
prosecution which rendered the recovery of 'danda' to be doubtful. Learned trial Court further held that besides this, there was no evidence available on record to the effect that accused had demanded dowry and had given beatings to the of complainant. On these bases, it was concluded by the learned trial Court that prosecution was not able to prove its case rt beyond reasonable doubt that in fact accused had committed offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. In appeal, learned Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court held that the incident is related to 6th December, 2005, and as per FIR, accused persons except the husband of the complainant gave beatings to complainant with a view to drive her out of her matrimonial house on the ground of her not bringing dowry items like television, refrigerator etc. Learned Appellate Court held that it had to be seen that whether the same was a single incidence or the same was having some historical background. Learned Appellate Court further held that in her complaint, complainant had alleged that since her ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 6 marriage which was solemnized in February, 2005, all accused persons maltreated her on the ground that she had not brought dowry and cash to the tune of ` 2,00,000/-.
.
Physical abuse to the complainant was attributed on this count with the intent to make her leave her matrimonial house. Learned Appellate Court held that as per the complainant, accused did so specifically on 6th February, of 2005. Learned Appellate Court held that mother of the complainant also made a complaint Ext. PW2/B to Pradhan, rt Gram Panchayat, Kulhera on 06.02.2005 about the accused physically assaulting her daughter for not bringing the dowry.
Learned Appellate Court further held that when the matter was brought to the notice of police and the Gram Panchayat authorities, accused Yog Raj executed a writing Ext. PW2/C admitting therein that he accepts all the allegations levelled against him and assured that he will bring complainant back from her parental house after two months and thereafter a compromise Ext. PW5/B was entered into between the parties on 6th June, 2005 to the effect that the accused would keep the complaint in their house properly and would not subject her to any cruelty. Learned Appellate Court held that the same demonstrated that after some time of marriage of the complainant with accused Yog Raj, Yog Raj as well as other ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 7 co-accused started physically beating the complainant for not bringing dowry like television, refrigerator etc. and cash to the tune of ` 2,00,000/-. Learned Appellate Court also held that .
evidence demonstrated that accused persons were constantly and consistently torturing Usha Rani (complainant) with the view to coerce her to leave her matrimonial home because she had failed to fulfill their demand of dowry. On these bases, it of was held by the learned Appellate Court that provisions of Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC were applicable in the present rt case. Learned Appellate Court also relied upon Judgment Ext.
D-1, in which PW4 Sanju alias Subhash was an accused under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC and the complaint was made by Sushila Devi, in which PW4 was however acquitted.
Learned Appellate Court drew the inference that the same demonstrates that PW4 Subhash Chand had actually gone to the matrimonial home of complainant on December 6, 2005 and the alleged incident of physically beating of complainant was also of 6th December, 2005, as was stated by the complainant. On these bases, it was concluded by the learned Appellate Court that prosecution was able to prove that accused had given beatings to the complainant for non-
fulfillment of their demand of dowry with an intent to drive her out of her matrimonial home and, accordingly, it ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 8 convicted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned senior counsel for the .
petitioners has argued that the judgment of conviction passed against the present petitioners by the learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same suffered from perversity and the findings so returned by the learned of Appellate Court were not borne from the records of the case.
According to Mr. Banyal learned Appellate Court erred in rt setting aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court as the prosecution in fact had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Banyal argued that there was no material on record from which it could be inferred that in fact complainant was physically abused by the accused on demand of dowry. He further argued that learned Appellate Court totally misread and misconstrued the evidence on record including the statement of complainant and her brothers. Mr. Banyal argued that learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that independent witnesses had not supported the version of the prosecution and, in these circumstances, the accused could not have been convicted solely on the basis of testimony of the complainant who ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 9 admittedly was an interested party and whose testimony was neither cogent, nor truthful nor worthy of reliance. On these bases, it was urged by Mr. Banyal that the judgment of .
conviction so passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside and the accused/petitioners be acquitted of the offences for commission of they stood convicted by the learned Appellate Court.
of
7. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, argued that the judgment of rt conviction so passed by the learned Appellate Court was neither perverse nor it could be said that the finding of guilt returned by the learned Appellate Court was not substantiated from the records of the case. Mr. Thakur submitted that learned trial Court had erred in acquitting the accused as it stood established beyond reasonable doubt from the material which was placed on record by the prosecution that accused were in fact guilty of offences for which they were charged. He further argued that learned Appellate Court had rightly concluded that it stood established from the record especially from the statement of PW1 complainant, PW4 Subhash Chand and PW5 Chander Sherkhar that complainant Usha Rani was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by giving beatings to her by the accused on the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 10 demand of dowry. He further argued that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court to the effect that all the accused wanted the complainant to procreate children, to .
bring a colour television and a refrigerator and cash to the tune of ` 2,00,000/- for the construction of a new house, for which, they started giving beatings to the complainant were based on correct appreciation of evidence placed on record of and same called for no interference. On these bases, it was urged by Mr. Thakur that as there was no merit in the rt revision petition, the same be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
9. Before proceeding in the matter, it is relevant to take note of what is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is settled law that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can interfere only if the findings of the Court whose decision is sought to be revised is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 11 decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. It has been held by Hon'ble .
Supreme Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Versus Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others, (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 123, that unmerited and undeserved prosecution is an infringement of guarantee under Article 21 of of the Constitution of India. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the purpose of revision rt jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the Court to do justice in cases of criminal jurisprudence.
10. Now coming to the facts of the present case. FIR is on record as PW1/A. A perusal of contents of the same demonstrates that the same was lodged on 06.12.2005 at the instance of the complainant, in which, it was mentioned that she was married with accused Yog Raj in the month of February, 2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and even after three years of marriage she was having no child. It was further mentioned therein that though for some time after her marriage, behaviour of her in-laws was good towards her, however, for the last two years, her husband and other accused were physically harassing her for not giving birth to a child. It was further mentioned in the FIR that this fact was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 12 brought into the notice of her parents by the complainant and thereafter a compromise was entered into between the parties .
in the Panchayat, but thereafter also accused kept on maltreating her and were also not giving her money etc, to meet her personal needs and her husband and her mother-in-
law kept on asking her to bring colour television, refrigerator of as well as money for the construction of house from her parents and used to physically abuse her. It was further rt mentioned therein that on 06.12.2005, when her younger brother Subhash Chand had come to meet her, accused confronted her as to why she had called her brother and when she told that he was her younger brother and he had come to meet her and how were they concerned, then accused started physically assaulting her with a 'danda, as a result of which, she suffered injuries on her arms, stomach and waist.
It was further mentioned in the FIR that thereafter complainant went to her elder brother and disclosed the entire incident to him which led to filing of complaint by her.
11. In this background, now this Court will examine the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as other documents on record. It is apparent from the contents of the FIR that earlier also there were certain disputes between the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 13 complainant and the accused which were got settled by the Panchayat. Ext. PW2/B is the copy of complaint dated 06.02.2005 made by the mother of the complainant to .
Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kulhera. It is mentioned in the said complaint that complainant Usha Rani was being physically abused by the accused on the demand of dowry and that accused also used to use abusive language against of the relatives of complainant and were not giving her meals etc., therefore appropriate action be taken against the rt accused and that Usha Rani (complainant) be provided with adequate expenses and residence etc. Ext PW2/C is an undertaking given by accused Yog Raj that he accepts that a dispute had arisen between the families and that he was sending his wife to her parental house for two months and thereafter would bring her back. Ext. PW2/A is another copy of complaint dated 15.06.2005, which was made by complainant Usha Rani to SHO, Police Station Barsar, wherein it was alleged that she was married to accused Yog Raj and though for some time she was treated properly by the accused but thereafter accused started physically abusing her. It was mentioned in the complaint that earlier also accused persons physically abused her on 06.02.2005 when a complaint to this effect was made to Panchayat and accused ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 14 Yog Raj had accepted his fault and sought apology. It was mentioned in this complaint that on 14.06.2005 when she alongwith her mother and brothers went to her in-laws house, .
accused persons gave beatings to her on the demand of dowry and had asked her to bring colour television, Fridge, car etc. Ext. PW5/B is compromise dated 15.06.2005 which was entered into between the complainant and the accused.
of
12. It is clear from the above documents that on 15.06.2005, matter was amicably settled between the complainant rt and accused by way of 'rajinama' dated 15.06.2005 Ext PW5/B.
13. Now the alleged incident, on the basis of which FIR was lodged, as per the complainant took place on 06.12.2005. There is no material placed on record by the prosecution to the effect that in between 'rajinama' dated 15.06.2005 and 06.12.2005, complainant was either physically abused or harassed on the demand of dowry etc. by the accused.
14. In this background, we will peruse the deposition made by PW1, PW4 and PW5 vis-à-vis the incident as it took place on 06.12.2005. Complainant who entered the witness box as PW1 stated in the Court that on 6th December, 2005, her younger brother Subhash had come to her matrimonial ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 15 house to meet her, on which accused started asking as to why had he come and asked her to throw him out of the house. She further deposed that simultaneously accused .
started beating her brother with 'dandas' and stones and when she asked them as to why they were behaving like this with her brother as he had come to meet her, they also started beating her with 'dandas'. She further deposed that of thereafter she went to Pradhan who told her that she should knock the doors of justice. She further deposed that rt thereafter she went to police station and reported the matter.
In her cross examination, this witness admitted that after her marriage, she was staying with her husband and thereafter she clarified it that she was staying with her in-laws. She denied that she was staying at Chandigarh but admitted that last time she had told the Presiding Officer of the Court that she and her husband (co-accused) had come together from Chandigarh. She also stated in her cross examination that her husband had taken a house on rent at Chandigarh. She further stated in her cross examination that she could not tell as to when demand of dowry in the shape of colour television, refrigerator etc. was made by the accused.
15. PW2 Veena Devi, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kulhera stated that she remained Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:30 :::HCHP 16 Kulhera from the year 2001 to 2006. She deposed that she knew the complainant as well as the accused. She further deposed that they had got the matter compromised between .
the parties. In her cross examination, she admitted the suggestion that no quarrel had taken place between the complainant and her husband in front of her. She also admitted it to be correct that Yog Raj had never demanded of any dowry from the complainant and that after the compromise was effected between them, both complainant rt and Yog Raj had left for Chandigarh. She further admitted it to be correct that bone of contention between the complainant and the accused was that complainant did not intend to live alongwith the family of accused and she wanted to live alone.
16. Subhash Chand who entered the witness box as PW4 stated that he is the younger brother of the complainant and on the fateful day, his sister (complainant) telephonically informed him that her in-laws were beating her and thereafter he went to the house of her sister's in-laws and saw that accused were present there and his sister told him that accused had beaten her. He further deposed that when he confronted the accused, they also started abusing him and slapped him.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP 1717. PW5 Chander Shekhar is also the brother of the complainant who stated that on 06.12.2005, Usha Rani came to her quarter at Barsar between 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. in the .
morning and told him that accused had beaten her with a 'danda' and when he saw his sister, he found that there were marks of beatings on her body and he took her to police station and thereafter her medical was got conducted.
of
18. In my considered view, a perusal of the statements of PW1, PW4 and PW5 about the occurrence of the alleged rt incident demonstrates that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of these three witnesses.
Whereas the version put forth by the complainant is that PW4, younger brother of the complainant came to her in her matrimonial home and this agitated the accused who started beating her brother and when she confronted them as to why they were beating her brother, they (accused) also started beating her, however, PW4 deposed that he received a telephonic call from his sister around 11:00 a.m. in the morning, who disclosed to him that she had been physically assaulted by the accused and when he went to the matrimonial house of the complainant, he found that accused were present there and his sister again informed him that accused had beaten her and when he confronted the accused ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP 18 as to why they had beaten the complainant, they also started beating him and slapped him. PW5 Chander Shekhar, the other brother of the complainant has given a totally different .
picture of the incident by saying that on the fateful day complainant came to his quarter at around 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. in the morning and informed him that she had been beaten by the accused and he also found bruises on her body of and thereafter he took her to the police station from where she was taken for medical examination. This Court fails to rt understand which of these three witnesses has made the correct and true deposition about the occurrence of the incident. These major inconsistencies and contradictions in the deposition of PW1, PW4 and PW5 have not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In my considered view, these contradictions in the deposition of PW1, PW4 and PW5 have not been appreciated in its correct perspective by the learned Appellate Court which had led to perversity in the findings of conviction passed against the accused. Learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that in fact the contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of PW1, PW4 and PW5 created a very serious doubt over the veracity of the prosecution case and it shrouds the entire case of the prosecution with the suspicion with regard to the happening ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP 19 of alleged incident on 06.12.2005 in the mode and manner as the prosecution wants this Court to believe.
19. This court is not oblivious of the fact that there .
are earlier also complaints filed by the mother of the complainant as well as by the complainant against accused and besides this, there is also an undertaking given by accused Yog Raj as well as a 'rajinama' dated 15.06.2005 of entered into between the complainant and the accused but fact of the matter still remains that the prosecution has not rt been able to satisfactorily explain that on 06.12.2005, the complainant was physically abused by the accused on the demand of dowry etc. in the mode and manner in which prosecution wants this Court of believe. Thus, the contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of PW1, PW4 and PW5, who are all interested witnesses, gives rise to suspicion that the accused might have been falsely implicated in the case at the behest of the complainant. Not only this, no independent witness has supported the version of the prosecution and PW2 Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Kulhera has also not supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that on 06.12.2005, the complainant was beaten by the accused and the said physical abuses meted out to the complainant by the accused were on the demand of dowry. In ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP 20 this background, there is merit in the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Appellate Court against .
the petitioners is perverse and the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court, in fact, are not borne out from the records of the case.
20. Learned Appellate Court also did not appreciate of that it is settled law that Appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal because another view is possible to be rt taken. It has not been appreciated that the Appellate can overrule or otherwise disturb the trial Court's acquittal if it has 'very substantial or compelling reasons' for doing so.
Honble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and Others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94 has held "12. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court against judgment of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal because another view is possible to be taken. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions on the subject and reference to a later decision of this Court in Ghurey Lal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh1 shall suffice wherein this Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP 21 considered a long line of cases and held thus :
(SCC p.477, paras 69 -70) "69. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
.
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both of facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this rt presumption when (2008) 10 SCC 450 he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong.
70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-
settled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons"
for doing so.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP 22
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and .
compelling reasons" exist when:
(i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;
(ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
(iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
of
(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
(v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; rt
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached--
one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this revision petition is allowed and judgment of conviction passed by the Court of learned Sessions Court, Hamirpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2007, dated 28.06.2008 against the petitioners is set aside and judgment of acquittal passed by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP 23 the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, dated 18.08.2007, in Case No. 149-1-2005/ 13-II-2006 in favour of present petitioners/accused is upheld. Fine .
amount, if any, deposited by the petitioners be returned to them in accordance with law. The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
of (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 4th January 2017.
rt (narender) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:31 :::HCHP