Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 52 (MP)

Uma Shankar v. State of M. P.

2009-01-09

N.K.MODY

body2009
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.6.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in Cr.A. No. 363/03, whereby the judgment dated 8.7.2003 passed by CJM, Guna in Criminal Case No. 863/2000, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section) 379 of IPC by sentencing him to undergo three months RI and fine of Rs. 250/- was allowed in part and conviction was maintained and fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed, present revision petition has been filed. 2. Case of the prosecution was that petitioner was found guilty for committing theft of walkman of complainant Dilip Kumar Yadav. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioner was convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against that order which was allowed in part and conviction was maintained and fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that petitioner has been convicted illegally while petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 4. In alternative learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a poor person. It is submitted that looking to the age of petitioner and nature of offence benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be given to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has committed offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower reappreciation of evidence. Hence, so far as conviction is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Courts below· is maintained. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower reappreciation of evidence. Hence, so far as conviction is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Courts below· is maintained. However it is made clear that the conviction will not affect adversely the career of the petitioner in any manner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.