ORDER
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
1. These three petitions, two revisions petitions and one leave to appeal, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.01.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2003, therefore, at the request of learned Counsel for the parties, all the three cases are heard and being disposed of by this common order.
2. Complainant Kaluram lodged an FIR No. 455/1996 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur and, after investigation of the case, the police filed a challan against four accused-persons, namely, Heeralal @ Nanuram, Babulal, Ramu and Rampratap. The trial court, vide its judgment dated 11.01.2002, acquitted accused Rampratap from all the offences, but convicted and sentenced accused-persons Heeralal, Babulal and Ramu as under:
Name of Accused Sections and Sentences awarded thereunder
Heeralal Under Section 323 IPC to undergo 6 months SI; under Section 324 IPC to undergo one year SI and fine of Rs. 5,00/-, in default to further undergo 2 months additional SI; under Section 325/34 IPC to undergo 1 year SI and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 2 months SI; under Section 326 IPC to undergo 2 years SI and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months SI.
Name of Accused Sections and Sentences awarded thereunder Babulal Under Section 323 IPC to undergo 6 months SI; under Section 324 IPC to undergo one year SI and fine of Rs. 5,00/-, in default to further undergo 2 months additional SI; under Section 326/34 IPC to undergo 2 years SI and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further undergo 2 months SI; under Section 325/34 IPC to undergo 1 year SI and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 2 months SI. Ramu Under Section 323 IPC to undergo 6 months SI; under Section 324/34 IPC to undergo one year SI and fine of Rs. 5,00/-, in default to further undergo 2 months additional SI; under Section 326/34 IPC to undergo 1 year SI and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months SI; under Section 325/34 IPC to undergo 1 year SI and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 2 months SI.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction, three accused-persons, namely, Heeralal, Babulal and Ramu filed an appeal. The appellate court, vide impugned judgment dated 15.01.2004, acquitted all the accused- persons from the offence under Sections 325 and 325/34 of the IPC, but the order of their conviction under Sections 323, 324 or 324/34, 326/34 of the IPC was upheld, and the order of sentence passed by the trial court was modified. Under Section 323, IPC, each accused-person was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in place of sentence of 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 5,00/-; under Section 324, IPC, each of them was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1500/- in place of sentence of one year imprisonment and under Section 326/34, IPC, each of them was sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them from 11.7.1996 to 17.7.1996 in place of 2 years imprisonment, with enhancement of fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month SI. The appellate court also directed that out of the amount of fine of Rs. 16,500/-, the trial court shall pay as compensation Rs. 5,000/- to the injured Surendra, Rs. 5000/- to injured Kishanlal and Rs. 2,500/- to injured Kaluram.
4. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the appellate court, these three petitions have been preferred; one by accused-persons challenging the order of their conviction and sentence; another by the State Government for awarding them adequate sentence; and, third by complainant for enhancement of sentence of imprisonment and fine.
5. The learned Counsel for the parties have argued their case at length.
6. There is no dispute in between the parties that the complainant and accused parties belong to one family. The father of complainant Rampratap Yadav and accused Ramu, both, are sons of Nanagram. Accused Heeralal and Babulal are sons of Ramu Yadav. The incident relates to the year 1996 and all persons are now residing peacefully.
7. I have examined the finding of the appellate court in the light of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the complainant, and , after considering the same, I do not find any illegality or perversity therein so as to interfere in the said finding.
8. So far as the criminal leave to appeal filed by the State Government and the revision petition filed by the complainant are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Bacchudas alias Balram and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 135, has held that the principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. So far as the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioners is concerned, it is clear that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the accused-persons have committed a crime.
9. After considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court and there is no merit in any of the three petitions and all are accordingly dismissed.
10. A certified copy of this order may be placed on the record of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 148/2004 and S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 144/2004.