(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.