Ram Pal vs State of U.P.

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for the revisionist. None appears for the State. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1984 passed by Sri B. B. S. Chaudhary, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1983 and affirming the judgment and order of the trial court whereby the revisionist was convicted u/s 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 1.500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for nine months.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has taken me through the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court. The findings of fact are challenged on the ground that the same are perverse and that material evidence was withheld by the prosecution. Having gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court. I do not find any perversity in the findings of the fact. It is not shown as to how the material evidence was withheld by the prosecution. The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order of sentence passed by trial court is upheld. The stay order dated 3.9.1984 is vacated.