AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for the opposite party and learned APP for the State.
The instant revision has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002, in Cr. Appeal No. 112A of 2000/ 108/2001 passed by Shri S.N. Pandey, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby the court below has confirmed the conviction of the Petitioners for the offence under Sections 379 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and has given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., directing them to be released on their entering into a bond to maintain good behavior for one year.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that on the basis of the evidence available on the record, the conviction of the Petitioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Counsel for the State have opposed the prayer and stated that the judgment of conviction has rightly been passed by the Court below and the Court below has rightly given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. to the Petitioners.
From perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that after meticulously considering the evidences on the record, the Court below has confirmed the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 379 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and has rightly given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. to the Petitioners.
I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order worth interference in the provisional jurisdiction.
This revision application is accordingly dismissed.