CHANDRADHAR GAUR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist/accused-Chandradhar Gaur, (Investigating Officer of case crime no. 508 of 2018 registered under Sec. 354 IPC and Ss. 7, 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), Police Station-Chhata, District Mathura), on being aggrieved by judgement of conviction and sentence dtd. 20/9/2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 429 of 2018 whereby invoking Sec. 345 Cr.P.C. convicted the revisionist/accused under Sec. 188 IPC and punished him by sentence of six months imprisonment as well as fine of Rs.1000.00 and 10 days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

(2.) Though, Sec. 351 Cr.P.C. provides remedy of appeal for conviction recorded, inter alia, under Sec. 345 Cr.P.C., but the revision has been preferred, as the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the revisionist/accused for an offence under Sec. 188 IPC, which is not provided under Sec. 345 Cr.P.C., therefore, the correctness, legality and regularity of proceeding, propriety of findings recorded by the trial court has been challenged in revision instead of appeal. It has been held by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Chinubhai Keshav-lal Nanavati Vs. K.J.Mehta [1978 Cr.L.J.1040 (DB) 447] that in case of unjust conviction, moving a Criminal Court in appeal or revision is the right course of action. Therefore, the revision.

(3.) Before venturing into the present matter, it would be expedient to consider it's genesis, which arose from case crime no. 508 of 2018, P.S. Chhata, District Mathura.