NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of Sri V. P. Mathur, Sessions Judge, Meerut, dated 2-6-1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1982 by which he has confirmed the judgment dated 29-3-1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 807 of 1980 convicting and sentencing the applicant to 2 years' Rl and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, under section 406 IPC.

(2.) VIDE order dated 7-6-1982 this revision was admitted by this Court only on the question of sentence. An application was subsequently moved that the revision was in fact admitted on merits and the order may be corrected. This application has been rejected by me.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant I feel that this revision has absolutely no force and must be dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge on the question of ownership of the scooter in question is erroneous. This finding given by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a sale note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant, is sought to be challenged on the ground that the sale receipt relates to scooter no. UTD-3143 and further that the courts below were persuaded to hold that this receipt bears the signature of the accused because he had signed in Hindi on paper no. 12A, the order of remand dated 14-9-80. In this connection the learned counsel invited my attention to Ex. Ka 1 and paper no. 12A and urged that Ex.Ka-1 is in respect of scooter no. UTD-3143 and that paper no. 12A does not bear the signature of the accused. I have considered the argument and feel that the finding of' fact arrived at by both the courts below cannot be gone into in this revision for the simple reason that the power of revision can only be exercised where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.