SUNDARA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionist was convicted in criminal case No. 471 of 1992 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mehiauni, Lalitpur for the offence under Section 456, IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year R. I. and pay fine of Rs. 100. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo 15 days R. I. Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1994 filed by him was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur on 25-1-1995. The sentence was, however, reduced to six months R. I. and line of Rs. 100 but the sentence in default of payment of fine was maintained. Aggrieved by it the accused has come to this Court in revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned State Counsel.

(3.) BOTH the courts below have discussed the oral evidence in some details. I agree with the decision arrived at by the courts below on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case. No case for interference in the order of convic tion has been made out. It was, however, urged that the benefit of First Offenders Probation Act should be extended to him as there is nothing on the record to indicate that he is a previous convict. I have considered the submis sion made in this behalf by the learned counsel for the revisionist but find myself unable to agree to it. In the facts and circumstances and in the manner the offence was committed, the revisionist is not entitled to that benefit.