B.V. VEERABADRAPPA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. The petitioner is first accused before the trial Court. He along with others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 509 r/w 149, IPC. The accused were tried for the said offences as they pleaded not guilty to the above charges. In proof of the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of 11 witnesses and 10 documents. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record held the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC only and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - with default clause. He has acquitted the other accused. There is no appeal against the order of acquittal. The first accused filed a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan. He has passed the impugned order.

(2.) THE order is challenged on many grounds. I have perused the orders of the Courts below. A cursory glance of the impugned order clearly shows that the learned Appellate Judge, viz., the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan has not even made a reference to the evidence let in by the prosecution in order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the appellant before him. This is really a serious infirmity which requires interference. The learned Judge obviously has not followed the mandates of Section 387, Cr.P.C. which provides for judgment of the subordinate appellate Courts. Section 387 reads as follows :

(3.) REVISION allowed.