MAHENDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.07.1987 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1985 arising out of Criminal Case No. 408 of 1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Khurja dated 09.01.1985 convicting the applicant under sections 500/211 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.1984, the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Khurja with the allegation that the revisionist with intention of causing loss to the complainant and defaming him maliciously lodged a false report at the police station Pahasu on 01.05.1984. On the basis of this report, case punishable under section 392 IPC was registered at the police station. After investigation of the case, the police found the case to be false. The complainant was put to great harassment and to defamation, hence he filed a complaint. The statement of the complainant was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and in inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. the statement of Basudeo was recorded. The learned Magistrate later on summoned the revisionist. After taking all the evidence in support, the Magistrate convicted the revisionist for six months' imprisonment under section 500 IPC and a fine to the tune of Rs. 1000/- with defaulting clause and six months' imprisonment under section 211 IPC coupled with fine to the tune of Rs. 1000/- with defaulting clause. He further ordered that in case the fine is recovered Rs. 1000/- to be paid to the complainant Ram Autar as damages. Feeling aggrieved the accused revisionist filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1985, which was dismissed on 22.07.1987. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present revision.

(3.) I have heard Shri Mohit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.