AJABLAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit who have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo S.I. for three months, under Section 341 of the IPC and directed each of them to undergo S.I. for one month, under Section 347 of the IPC and directed each of them to undergo S.I. for one year with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment dated 17.07.1998 passed by Sri Kanta Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rosera, in G.R.No.243 of 1988 as well as judgment of confirmation dated 09.07.2002 passed by 5 th Additional Sessions, Samastipur in Cr.Appeal No.96 of 1998 have challenged the concurrent finding in the present revision petition.

(2.) ON account of absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter has properly been browsed with the assistance of learned Additional P.P. Moreover, Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. did not require presence of learned counsel as a matter of right.

(3.) THE power to be exercised in tune of revisional jurisdiction is limited one and unless there happens to be manifest error visualizing on the record, there should not be appreciation of evidence in routine manner.