STATE OF U.P Vs. MOHD. JAMIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Assistant Government Advocate.

(2.) The opposite parties were tried for offence under Sec. 3 of the U.P. Railway Protection Act. The complaint was heard and. evidence of the prosecution was recorded by the Magistrate under Sec. 244 Cr. P.C. and at that stage the Magistrate came to the conclusion after considering the evidence that tie bars of the value of Rs. 5/- each were taken by the opposite parties and under Sec. 95 I.P.C. the Magistrate found that the act, if any, committed by the opposite parties causing slight harm of the value of Rs. 5/- was a trivial matter and, therefore, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons, It is. against this order that the present revision his been filed.

(3.) I have gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 23rd June, 1982. The Magistrate has mentioned that the criminal case proceeded against the opposite parties for seven years and thereafter the aforesaid impugned order was passed. Considering the two facts. namely, that the trial proceeded for seven years and the property taken by the opposite parties, was of the value of Rs. 5/- each, I am of the view that the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate is proper. There is no scope for interference in this revision. The revision is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.