Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Thakur Alias Maddi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 November, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 397 of 2018 .
Date of decision: 15.11.2018.
Mahesh Thakur alias Maddi .......Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Addl. A.Gs., with Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy.
A.G. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
The petitioner was convicted alongwith his other co-
accused and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for committing offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC. In addition thereto, he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2018 22:57:07 :::HCHP 2 one month under Section 332 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
.
2. The judgment of conviction and sentence was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. However, during the course of arguments, the appellants vide their separately recorded statements submitted that they do not want to press the appeals against the judgment of conviction and only want to contest the order of sentence and prayed that they may be released on probation. This is clearly evident from para-9 of the impugned judgment which reads thus:
"9. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellants, vide their separately recorded statements have submitted that they do not want to press their appeals against the judgment of conviction and wants to contest the order of sentence and prayed that they may kindly be released on probation. The reports of Probation Officer have also been called. In the reports, the concerned Probation Officers have recommended that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act be given to the accused persons."
3. Acting on the representation of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge released him on bail vide order dated 3.8.2018 and the same has been assailed before this Court on various grounds.
::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2018 22:57:07 :::HCHP 34. Surprisingly enough the petitioner has still filed the instant revision petition assailing therein the judgment whereby .
he has been released on probation as per his request on various grounds. What is further more surprising is that he has conveniently chosen not to make a mention of what is recorded in para-9 (supra). The instant revision petition obviously is not maintainable in view of what was prayed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge more especially when it is not the case of the petitioner that what finds mention and recorded in para-9 (supra) is incorrect.
5. That apart, even if it is assumed that what has been recorded in para-9 of the order (supra), was not correct, even then, this fact had to be brought to the notice of that very Court, who had passed the order and cannot be assailed either in revision or appeal.
6. The reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in CWP NO. 283 of 2016, decided on 8.8.2016 titled Hardyal Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein it was held as under:
"6. The defence put forth by the petitioner is clearly an after-thought because as observed earlier the petitioner over these years has not taken any steps for questioning the undertaking and is, therefore, bound by the same. There is no gainsaying that in case the petitioner had in fact not given the undertaking as reflected in the order, ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2018 22:57:07 :::HCHP 4 then the only course open to him was to have called the attention of that very authority, who had made the record .
and have the same corrected. If no such steps were taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to a party to contend before the higher authority/Court to the contrary. This Court cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired before the authority. It is simply not done. Public policy and judicial decorum do not permit it. These matters are unquestionable.
7. In taking such view, we are fortified by the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India versus Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi and another (2003) 6 SCC 573 wherein it was held as under:-
"12.The only course open to a party taking the stand that an order does not reflect actual position is to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra v.Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 2 SCC 463. In recent decisions i.e. Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111 and Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595: the view in the said case was reiterated. Statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by an affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2018 22:57:07 :::HCHP 5 record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter .
must necessarily end there. It is not open to a party to contend before this Court to the contrary. This Court cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done.
Public policy and judicial decorum do not permit it. Matters of judicial record in that sense are unquestionable. However, the Court can pass appropriate orders if a party moves it contending that the order has not correctly reflected r happenings in court."
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
15th November, 2018. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (GR) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2018 22:57:07 :::HCHP