Lallan Prasad Verma vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4733 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2930 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Lallan Prasad Verma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Ram Maurya,Sanjeev Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dilip Chandra
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Rrack Court No.II, Ballia in Session Trial No.141/2017 (State Vs. Mantosh Verma and others) arising out of N.C.R. NO.0050/2016, case Crime No.309 of 2016, Police Station Rewati, district Ballia, by which the accused persons, who are opposite parties in this case were convicted and given the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders act, 1958.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the trial court has not passed the impugned order on the basis of the evidence available on record and has not given adequate punishment to the revisionist, who had mercilessly beaten the informant and other family members. He further submitted that the revisionist be awarded punishment and be sentenced to jail to serve out his sentence and the trial court has committed illegally while releasing the revisionist on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist but has not disputed the argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist. He submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned order within its full judicial competence.

Considering the rival submission, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial court by way of impugned order has deferred the punishment to the accused/revisionist and release him on probation for three years and has imposed fine of Rs.40,000/- . Considering the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 this Court is the view that the impugned order was passed within full judicial competence and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order as the trial court was well within its judicial competence to release the accused/revisionist on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.2.2023

R./