(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 23-11-2000 passed by Shri Mahendra Narain Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Cr. Appeal No. 48 of 1997 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 30-8-1997 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in G.R. Case No. 2204 of 1985 Tr. No. 771 of 1997. Two of the revisionists namely Pancha Nand Choudhary and Durga Navratnanand Choudhary have been sentenced to three months SI and revisionists namely Smt. Savitri Devi and Kavita Nandani Choudhary were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default to undergo SI for 15 days.
(2.) It has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that Durga Navratnanand Choudhary and Kavita Nandani Choudhary were minors on the date of occurrence i.e. on 4-6-1985 and hence they deserved no punishment from the trial Court. So far the other revisionists are concerned, they were already in their fifties so far age is concerned and now they have further advanced in age and hence a lenient view may be taken. Moreover, the original FIR and the fardbayan were not brought on the record, rather photo state copy of the came were exhibited.
(3.) Admittedly all the revisionists were convicted for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and the evidence adduced by the prosecution established the offence of under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, so the finding of the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court regarding the alleged trespass by the revisionists cannot be reversed in revision unless the findings are vitiated by illegalities or factual irregularities. I do not think there is any such infirmity in the evidence of the prosecution. So far the admission of photo copies of the FIR and farubayan is concerned, it has been stated in the judgment that the papers were torn and, therefore, photo copy copies were exhibited. There is no illegality in admitting the photo copies if the original FIR and fardbayan were torn or missing.