Narvada and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

Narvada and ors. vs State of M.P.

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 07, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510675

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510675
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Uma Nath Singh, J.
Decided On: May 07, 2002
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1016/96
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055. Article 141; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Ful...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 149 and 325

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narvada and ors.

Advocate N.C. Beohar, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate Chanchal Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 149 and 325
Cases Referred: Havaldar Singh v. State of M.P.
Reported In: 2003(2)MPHT335

Excerpt

.....it cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. .....additional sessions judge did not find any infirmity with the findings of the learned judicial magistrate, and therefore, maintained the order of conviction and sentence as above. 3. heard shri n.c. beohar, learned counsel for the applicants and smt. chanchal sharma, learned panel lawyer for the state and perused the records. 4. on a due consideration of rival submissions and perusal of the records, i do not find any patent illegality, leading to miscarriage of justice which need interference by this court in revision. accordingly, the order of conviction based on concurrent findings of facts are hereby affirmed. however, looking to the submissions of shri beohar, learned counsel, that each of the accused/applicants has suffered about five months of jail sentence and that the fine amount has already been deposited, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to release the accused/applicants on the sentence, being more than four months, which has already been suffered by them. this court in the case of havaldar singh v. state of m.p. (1995 (i) mpwn [note 194] page 275) had taken a lenient view and had directed the release of the accused/applicants on the sentence already undergone. 5. accordingly, the jail sentences of six months r.i. under section 147, ipc and one year r.i. under section 325 read with section 149, ipc are hereby reduced to the period already suffered by each of the accused/applicants. as the applicants are on bail in terms of the order dated 31-10-96, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 6. the criminal revision is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid modification on the quantum of sentence.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Uma Nath Singh, J.

1. This criminal revision impugns the judgment and order dated 24-10-96 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 8/95, whereby the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 71/91, dated 15-2-95 has been affirmed.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Rudreshwar Prasad was waylaid on 10-9-90 by the accused/applicants and was inflicted injuries with blunt objects. The Trial Court on a proper appreciation of evidence led by both the sides relied on the evidence of S.K. Pathak (P.W. 3) and Dr. D.S. Kapoor (P.W. 6) and held the accused/applicants guilty of offences under Sections 147, 325 and 149 of IPC and sentenced them to the period of six months' R.I. under Section 147, IPC and one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 325/149, IPC. In appeal the learned First Additional Sessions Judge did not find any infirmity with the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, and therefore, maintained the order of conviction and sentence as above.

3. Heard Shri N.C. Beohar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and perused the records.

4. On a due consideration of rival submissions and perusal of the records, I do not find any patent illegality, leading to miscarriage of justice which need interference by this Court in revision. Accordingly, the order of conviction based on concurrent findings of facts are hereby affirmed. However, looking to the submissions of Shri Beohar, learned Counsel, that each of the accused/applicants has suffered about five months of jail sentence and that the fine amount has already been deposited, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to release the accused/applicants on the sentence, being more than four months, which has already been suffered by them. This Court in the case of Havaldar Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 (I) MPWN [Note 194] page 275) had taken a lenient view and had directed the release of the accused/applicants on the sentence already undergone.

5. Accordingly, the jail sentences of six months R.I. under Section 147, IPC and one year R.I. under Section 325 read with Section 149, IPC are hereby reduced to the period already suffered by each of the accused/applicants. As the applicants are on bail in terms of the order dated 31-10-96, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

6. The criminal revision is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid modification on the quantum of sentence.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2002 Same Parties Narvada and ors. vs State of M.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Uma Nath Singh, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 149 and 325

Criminal