# Ram Prakash Pandey Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 190
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 252 of 2011
- **Bench:** Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prakash-pandey-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48173
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Revision - Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 198-A(2) -
Where any person, after being evicted
under this section, re-occupies the land or
any part thereof without lawful authority,
he shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years
but which shall not be less than three
months and also with fine which may
extend
to
three
thousand
rupees
-
Probation
of
Offenders
Act,
1958
-
Sections 4 - Power of court to release
certain offen(Para - 6,7,8)

Revisionist convicted and sentenced under
section 198 -A(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Trial
Court as well as appellate Court recorded
finding of fact - Plot No.458/0.253 hectare
initially allotted to allottee - handed over the
possession - allottee was dispossessed by
revisionist - finding of fact duly supported by
evidence of PW-2 , Lekhpal of the area
concerned
-
not
a
person
of
criminal
antecedents. (Para - 5,7)

HELD:-No illegality, irregularity or impropriety
in the impugned judgment. Conviction of
revisionist recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate
upheld by appellate court deserves to be
maintained. Sentence modified to the extent
that instead of sentencing the revisionist to the
jail, he shall get the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. No ground to
interfere with the finding of conviction under
Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.(Para - 5,12)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasonable. The accident is more than ten
years old. The dispute was between the
neighbors over a trivial issue of claiming of
drainage. The accident took place in a fit of
anger. All the parties educated and also
distantly related. The accident is not such
as to direct the accused to undergo
sentence of imprisonment. In our opinion, it
is a fit case in which the accused should be
released on probation by directing them to
execute a bond of one year for good
behaviour."

14. Similarly, in Jagat Pal Singh &
others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000
SC 3622, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given
the benefit of probation while upholding
the conviction of accused persons under
Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and has
released the accused persons on executing a
bond before the Magistrate for maintaining
good behaviour and peace for the period of
six months.

15. In the light of the above
discussions, I find no illegality, irregularity
or impropriety in the impugned judgment.
Thus, the conviction of the revisionist no.2,
Gobardhan
recorded
by
the
District
Magistrate, Hardoi, vide order dated
31.07.2010 passed in Case No.120 of 2009,
State vs. Dammar and another, under
Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act;
upheld by the learned appellate court vide
order dated 04.05.2011, passed in Criminal
Appeal No.114 of 2010, Dammar and
another vs. State of U.P., deserve to be
maintained.
However,
sentence,
as
discussed above, needs to be modified.

16. The upshot of aforesaid discussion
is that the conviction of the revisionist no.2,
Gobardhan for the offence under Section
198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act is upheld
however, the sentence is modified to the
extent that instead of sentencing the
revisionist no.2, Gobardhan, to the jail, he
shall get the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. Further, the
revisionist no.2, Gobardhan shall file two
sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned coupled with personal bonds to
the effect that he shall not commit any
offence and shall be of good behaviour and
shall maintain peace during the period of
three months. The bonds aforesaid be filed
by the revisionists within eight weeks.

17. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, he shall be taken into
custody and shall have to undergo sentence
awarded to him.

18. With the above modification, the
instant revision is dismissed.

19. A copy of this order be
communicated to the trial Court concerned
for necessary information and compliance
through e-mail/fax.
----------
(2022)03ILR A190
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 252 of 2011

Ram Prakash Pandey ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shashi Kant Dwivedi, Ram Chandra
Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
3 All. Ram Prakash Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
191
(A) Criminal Law - Revision - Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 198-A(2) -
Where any person, after being evicted
under this section, re-occupies the land or
any part thereof without lawful authority,
he shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years
but which shall not be less than three
months and also with fine which may
extend
to
three
thousand
rupees
-
Probation
of
Offenders
Act,
1958
-
Sections 4 - Power of court to release
certain offen(Para - 6,7,8)

Revisionist convicted and sentenced under
section 198 -A(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Trial
Court as well as appellate Court recorded
finding of fact - Plot No.458/0.253 hectare
initially allotted to allottee - handed over the
possession - allottee was dispossessed by
revisionist - finding of fact duly supported by
evidence of PW-2 , Lekhpal of the area
concerned
-
not
a
person
of
criminal
antecedents. (Para - 5,7)

HELD:-No illegality, irregularity or impropriety
in the impugned judgment. Conviction of
revisionist recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate
upheld by appellate court deserves to be
maintained. Sentence modified to the extent
that instead of sentencing the revisionist to the
jail, he shall get the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. No ground to
interfere with the finding of conviction under
Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.(Para - 5,12)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Subhash Chand & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (2015
Law Suit (All) 1343)

2. St. of Mah. Vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh
Anand & ors. (2004) 7 SCC 659

3. Jagat Pal Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har., AIR
2000 SC 3622

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 22.4.2011 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Hardoi in
Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2010 and the
judgment and order dated 3.3.2010 passed
by the S.D.M., Bilgram, Hardoi in Case
No.39/4104
of
2002,
Case
Crime
No.263/2002
thereby
convicting
the
sentencing the revisionist under Section
198-A(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for three
months
imprisonment
and
fine
of
Rs.1,500/-.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that the finding recorded by
learned trial Court regarding the conviction
of revisionist, under Section 198A(2)
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is against the weight
of evidence, which is illegal and not
sustainable in the eye of law because there
was a civil dispute pending between the
parties. Therefore, the impugned order of
conviction is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
submitted that the finding of conviction by
learned trial Court has been recorded on the
basis of proper analysis and appreciation of
evidence. Therefore, the same cannot be
termed
illegal
or
perverse
and
no
interference by this Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction is warranted.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and upon perusal of the record,
it transpires that the learned trial Court as
well as appellate Court has clearly recorded
a finding of fact that Plot No.458/0.253
hectare
was
initially
allotted
to
Harishankar, who was handed over the
possession
of
the
same.
Thereafter,
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Harishankar, allottee was dispossessed by
the present revisionist, Ram Prakash
Pandey. The finding of the said fact is duly
supported by the evidence of PW-2,
Mahendra Kumar, Lekhpal of the area
concerned. As such no illegality or
perversity is decipherable from order of
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3,
Hardoi dated 22.04.2011 and order dated
3.3.2010 passed by the S.D.M., Bilgram,
Hardoi. Therefore, there is no ground to
interfere with the finding of conviction
under Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.

6. Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R.
Act provides as under:-

"198-A........................

1.................

(2) Where any person, after being
evicted under this section, re-occupies the
land or any part thereof without lawful
authority, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years but which shall not be less
than three months and also with fine which
may extend to three thousand rupees:

Provided
that
the
court
convicting the accused may, while passing
the sentence, direct that the whole or such
portion of the fine that may be recovered as
the court considers proper be paid to the
allottee or lessee, as the case may be, as
damages for use and occupation."

7. Having regard to the aforesaid
provision and also keeping in view the fact
that there is noting on record to show that
the revisionist has been a previous convict
or a person who has criminal antecedents.
It is useful to quote Sections 4 of Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958:-

"4. (1) When any person is found
guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and the court by which the person is
found guilty is of opinion that, having
regard to the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence and the
character of the offender, it is expedient to
release him on probation of good conduct,
then, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force,
the court may, instead of sentencing him at
once to any punishment, direct that he be
released on his entering into a bond, with
or without sureties, to appear and receive
sentence when called upon during such
period, not exceeding three years, as the
court may direct, and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not
direct such release of an offender unless it
is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if
any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place over which the
court exercises jurisdiction or in which the
offender is likely to live during the period
for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order
under sub-section (1) is made, the court
shall take into consideration the report, if
any, of the probation officer concerned in
relation to the case.

(3) When an order under subsection (1), the court may, if it is of opinion
that in the interests of the offender and of
the public it is expedient so to do, in
addition pass a supervision order directing
that the offender shall remain under the
supervision of a probation officer named in
the order during such period, not being less
than one year, as may be specified therein,
and may in such supervision order or
impose such conditions as it deems
necessary for the due supervision of the
offender.

(4)
The
court
making
a
supervision order under sub-section (3)
3 All. Ram Prakash Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
193
shall require the offender, before he is
released, to enter into a bond, with or
without sureties, to observe the conditions
specified in such order and such additional
conditions with respect to residence,
abstention from intoxicants or any other
matter as the court may, having regard to
the particular circumstances, consider fit to
impose for preventing a repetition of the
same offence or a commission of other
offences by the offender.

(5)
The
court
making
a
supervision order under sub-section (3)
shall explain to the offender the terms and
conditions of the order and shall forthwith
furnish one copy of the supervision order to
each of the offenders, the sureties, if any,
and the probation officer concerned."

8. It is also relevant to quote Section
11 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
which reads as under:-

"11. Courts competent to make
order under the Act, appeal and revision
and powers of courts in appeal and
revision.--

"(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code or any other law, an
order under this Act, may be made by any
court empowered to try and sentence the
offender to imprisonment and also by the
High Court or any other court when the
case comes before it on appeal or in
revision.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code, where an order
under section 3 or section 4 is made by any
court trying the offender (other than a High
Court), an appeal shall lie to the court to
which appeals ordinarily lie from the
sentences of the former court.

(3) In any case where any person
under twenty-one years of age is found
guilty of having committed an offence and
the court by which he is found guilty
declines to deal with him under section 3 or
section 4, and passes against him any
sentence of imprisonment with or without
fine from which no appeal lies or is
preferred, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code or any other law, the
court to which appeals ordinarily lie from
the sentences of the former court may,
either of its own motion or on an
application made to it by the convicted
person or the probation officer, call for and
examine the record of the case and pass
such order thereon as it thinks fit.

(4) When an order has been made
under section 3 or section 4 in respect of an
offender, the Appellate Court or the High
Court in the exercise of its power of
revision may set aside such order and in
lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender
according to law: Provided that the
Appellate Court or the High Court in
revision
shall
not
inflict
a
greater
punishment than might have been inflicted
by the court by which the offender was
found guilty."

9. This Court in the case of Subhash
Chand & others Vs. State of U.P. (2015
Law Suit (All) 1343) , has emphatically
laid down the need to apply the law of
probation and give benefit of the beneficial
legislation
to
accused
persons
in
appropriate
cases.
This
court
issued
following directions to all trial courts and
appellate courts:-

30. "It appears that the aforesaid
beneficial legislation has been lost sight of
and even the Judges have practically
forgotten this provision of law. Thus, before
parting with the case, this Court feels that I
will be failing in discharge of my duties, if
a word of caution is not written for the trial
courts and the appellante courts. The
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Registrar General of this Court is directed
to circulate copy of this Judgement to all
the District Judges of U.P., who shall in
turn ensure circulation of the copy of this
order amongst all the judicial officers
working under him and shall ensure strict
compliance of this Judgement. The District
Judges in the State are also directed to call
for reports every months from all the
courts, i.e. trial courts and appellate courts
dealing with such matters and to state as to
in how many cases the benefit of the
aforesaid provisions have been granted to
the accused. The District Judges are also
directed to monitor such cases personally
in each monthly meeting. The District
Judges concerned shall send monthly
statement to the Registrar General as to in
how many cases the trial court/appellate
court has granted the benefit of the
aforesaid beneficial legislation to the
accused. A copy of this order be placed
before the Registrar General for immediate
compliance."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State
of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh
Kuldip Singh Anand & others (2004) 7
SCC 659 has extended the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the
appellants, and observed as under:-

"The learned counsel appearing
for the accused submitted that the accident
is of the year 1990. The parties are
educated and neighbors. The learned
counsel, therefore, prayed that benefit of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may
be granted to the accused. The prayer
made on behalf of the accused seems to be
reasonable. The accident is more than ten
years old. The dispute was between the
neighbors over a trivial issue of claiming of
drainage. The accident took place in a fit of
anger. All the parties educated and also
distantly related. The accident is not such
as to direct the accused to undergo
sentence of imprisonment. In our opinion, it
is a fit case in which the accused should be
released on probation by directing them to
execute a bond of one year for good
behaviour."

11. Similarly, in Jagat Pal Singh &
others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000
SC 3622, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given
the benefit of probation while upholding
the conviction of accused persons under
Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and has
released the accused persons on executing a
bond before the Magistrate for maintaining
good behaviour and peace for the period of
six months.

12. In the light of the above
discussions, I find no illegality, irregularity
or impropriety in the impugned judgment.
Thus, the conviction of the revisionist, Ram
Prakash Pandey recorded by Sub Divisional
Magistrate Bilgram, Hardoi vide order
dated
03.03.2010
passed
in
Case
No.39/4104 of 2002, under Section 198 A
(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act; upheld by the
learned appellate court vide order dated
22.04.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal
No.42/10 deserves to be maintained.
However, sentence, as discussed above,
needs to be modified. The conviction of the
revisionist, Ram Prakash Pandey for the
offence under Section 198 A (2) U.P.Z.A &
L.R. Act is upheld, however, the sentence is
modified to the extent that instead of
sentencing the revisionist, Ram Prakash
Pandey, to the jail, he shall get the benefit
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act. Further, the revisionist, Ram Prakash
Pandey shall file two sureties to the
satisfaction of the court concerned coupled
with personal bonds to the effect that he
shall not commit any offence and shall be
3 All. Radhey Shyam Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
195
of good behaviour and shall maintain peace
during the period of three months. The
bonds aforesaid be filed by the revisionists
within eight weeks.

13. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, he shall be taken into
custody and shall have to undergo sentence
awarded to him.

14. With the above modification, the
instant revision is dismissed.

15. A copy of this order be
communicated to the trial Court concerned
for necessary information and compliance
through e-mail/fax.
----------
(2022)03ILR A195
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 624 of 2022

Radhey Shyam Bharti ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ms. Pooja

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 397/401, 156(3)
- Indian Electricity Act - Section 135 -
challenge to-rejection of application u/s
156(3) for issuing a direction for
registration of an FIR-revisionist let out
some portion of his land to install a mobile
tower-he
used
to
electricity
for
his
domestic use from the service connection
of the mobile company-he also let his
tenant to use the same-the act of
revisionist
is
amount
to
punishable
offence-vigilance team,UPPCL conducted a
special checking drive against the power
theft
and
lodged
FIR
agaisnt
the
revisionist-revisionist filed that complaint
in order to put counter pressure on the
officials for taking undue advantage in
plural cases of theft of electricity-the
process of law cannot be allowed to be
abused by a person who is facing trial for
theft of Electricity-The process of law can
be invoked by a pricipled and really
aggrieved person who approaches the
court with clean hands-order passed by
learned Special Judge does not suffer from
any legal infirmity.(Para 1 to 25)

B. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 156 (3) - While
considering the application u/s 156(3)
CrPC the court is duty bound to consider
the
averments
as
alleged
in
the
application and if the same constitute any
cognizable offence, the Court has to pass
an order for registration of the case and
investigation, is also without force and
against the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The Magistrate has to
carefully scrutinise the evidence brought
on record and has to find out the
truthfulness
of
the
allegations
or
otherwise and then examine if any offence
is prima facie committed by all or any of
the accused and in the present case, the
learned Court below has rightly done
so.(Para 15)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Pooja, Advocate, the
learned counsel for the revisionist and the
learned A.G.A. appearing for the Staterespondent.

2. By means of the instant revision
under
Section
397/401
Cr.P.C.,
the
revisionist has challenged the legality and