MOHAMMAD HASAN Vs. NAZIR HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The revisionist have requested to quash the order dated 22-1-1990 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in criminal revision No. 383 of 1989 and to restore the order of the Magistrate dated 31-7-1989 passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr. P. C.

(2.) I have heard Sri M. Islam, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri Vikram Nath, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. Opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 have not appeared and therefore could not be heard.

(3.) I have considered the arguments and law laid down in this case. If in a case where the assessment of the evidence is not required and the only conclusion that can be taken from the evidence is in favour of one party and therefore the revisional Court can definitely record a different finding of possession. This view has been taken in various cases after the decision of the case relied on by the learned Counsel for the revisionists.