Back
2022 Supreme(All) 182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.
Dammar And Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.229 of 2011
Decided on : 11-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Singh, Arvind Kumar Singh
The judgment establishes the need to apply the law of probation and grant the benefit of beneficial legislation to accused persons in appropriate cases, as well as the court's power to modify sentences under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Headnote:
U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act - Conviction under Section 198A(2) - 198A(2)
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a criminal revision against the conviction of the revisionist under Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act for re-occupying a land without lawful authority, arising from a civil dispute over possession of a plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on the finding that the revisionists had dispossessed the original allottee of the plot, and found no illegality or perversity in the lower court's orders.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the conviction under Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, based on the presence of a civil dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of a witness and the provisions of Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act to uphold the conviction, and also considered the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to grant the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, requiring the revisionist to file sureties and personal bonds.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2010, Dammar and another vs. State of U.P. and judgment and order dated 31.07.2010 passed by U.P. Zila Adhikari, Hardoi in Case No.128 of 2009, State vs. Dammar and another, arising out of Case Crime No.263 of 2009, under Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi whereby the appellate Court has upheld the conviction of three months imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1500/-.
3. From the perusal of the report dated 04.01.2022 furnished by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, it transpires that the revisionist no.1 in this case, namely Dammar has died.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision has abated in respect of the revisionist no.1, Dammar.
5. Accordingly, this revision is surviving only in respect of revisionist no.2, Gobardhan.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist no.2 has submitted that the finding recorded by learned trial Court regarding the conviction of revisionist no.2, 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 recorded a cogent finding of fact that Plot No.309/0.63 hectare was initially allotted to Shripal, who was handed over the possession of the same. Thereafter, Shripal, allottee was dispossessed by the present revisionists, Dammar & Gobardhan. The finding of the said fact is based on testimony of PW2, Jitendra, Lekhpal of the area concerned. As such no illegality or perversity is decipherable from order of Sessions Judge, Hardoi dated 04.05.2011 and order dated 31.07.2010 passed by U.P. Zila Adhikari, Hardoi. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of conviction under Section 198A(2) U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.
9. 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."
10. Having regard to the aforesaid provision and also keeping in view the fact that there is noting on record to show that the revisionist no.2, Gobardhan 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
