KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the four ap ­plicants and one Smt. Rajwala were con ­victed for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149, IPC. Smt. Rajwala was released on probation. However, the applicants were awarded various terms of sentences by the judgment dated 19 -12 -1997 passed by the VII, ACJM, Ghaziabad. Against that order, the applicants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1997 in which the conviction has been maintained. Ap ­plicants Karan Singh and Adesh have been sentenced to six months RI for the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each. Applicants Anand and Subhash have been convicted under Section 147, IPC and sentenced to four months RI and to pay a fine of .Rs. 200/ - each. All the four applicants have been sentenced to six months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for offence under Sec ­tion 323/149, IPC, one year's RI and to pay a fine Rs. 1,000 for offence under Section 324/149, IPC and two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/ - for offence under Sec ­tion 325/149, IPC by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by an order dated 22 -6 -2000. Against that order, the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Sri O.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri H.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the com ­plainant and the AGA and have gone through the record.

(3.) NOW coming to the sentences, it has been argued that the same are extremely severe and a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentences. It is contended that the incident took place on 10 -4 -1993. It is further contended that there is a dis ­pute between the parties regarding a piece of land. That regarding that land a suit was filed, which was decreed and the appeal filed by the complainant has also been dismissed. Even then the complainant is disturbing in the possession of the ap ­plicants for the reason that he has filed second appeal in the High Court. Certified copy of the order has been filed which shows that the second appeal was dis ­missed on 24 -8 -1992 for want of prosecu ­tion. It is contended by the learned Coun ­sel for the complainant that an application for restoration has been moved. However, all these facts show that the applicants are in possession of the said land.