JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Since the revision is time barred, accordingly, delay condonation application (IA/2/2021) has been moved. Notices were issued to the private respondent but despite personal service none appeared on behalf of him. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and delay in preferring the present revision is condoned.

2. Heard.

3. Admit.

4. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397/ 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.1385 of 2011, State Vs. Satnam Singh @ Sonu & Others, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the revisionist under Section 147 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation and also convicted U/s 332 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, as well as against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, District-Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2012, Jagdish Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisionist.

5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that PW1 Ganesh Dutt Sati submitted an information Ex.Ka-1 with police station Belpadav, Ramnagar. On the basis of the said information, chick FIR was lodged on the very same day with police station Belpadav, Ramnagar. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet Ex.Ka-4 was submitted. Accordingly, after compliance with the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate took the cognizance and framed the charge on 12.03.2012 U/s 147, 332, 353 IPC and U/s 26 of the Indian Forest Act. The revisionist denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Ganesh Dutt Sati (informant and injured), PW2 Jagjeevan Ram Arya (eye-witness), PW3 S.I. Ravindra Kumar (I.O.), PW4 Veerpal Singh (witness to the incident) and PW5 Kamala Kant Joshi (injured).

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of revisionist was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidences and stated that the prosecution produced false evidences against him. However, no evidence was produced in defence.

8. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court convicted the revisionist and sentenced him as mentioned above in paragraph no. 4 of the judgment.

9. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012, Jagdish Vs. State before the Sessions Judge, Nainital, who ultimately transferred it to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by it, the present criminal revision has been preferred.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist fairly argued that the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court U/s 332 is just and proper and the order of the appellate court dated 04.08.2017 is also based on merit. He does not want to argue the revision on merit regarding the conviction U/s 332 IPC but the revisionist cannot be punished U/s 147 IPC.

11. I have also gone through the record and judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the finding in the appeal. As regards to the conviction passed by the Court below U/s 332 is concerned, there is no illegality in the impugned findings and sentence. As regards to the conviction U/s 147 IPC is concerned, the word ‘rioting' has been defined U/s 146 IPC and the unlawful assembly has been defined U/s 141 IPC, which are being rep