RAGHVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the respondent and perused the record.

(2.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonebhadra in criminal appeal No. 9 of 2001, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction order dated 18.5.2001 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra under Section 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') against the revisionist.

(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that when the Magistrate called for the challani report from the revisionist, there was no justification for the revisionist to withhold the report. After all the Magistrate had to pass some order on the application moved by the owner of the vehicle, as such the attitude adopted by the revisionist in ignoring the order of the Magistrate cannot be appreciated, therefore, the Courts below were fully justified in convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 349 of the Code.