CRIMINALREVISIONNQ. £(Q QF 2013 v. Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2013, passed by Judge Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2012 (Annexure P-l'), arising out -^ judgment of conviction dated 27.1'2.2011, passed in Criminal Case No. 415/2011 by Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Annexure P-Zj, petitioner begs to prefer this criminal revision on the following facts and grounds:- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice T.P. Sharma Criminal Revision No.610 of 2013 Petidoner Bhojram Sahu Respondent State of Chhattisgarh versus Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appearance: Mr. SP Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Surait Jhawar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Mr. RS Patel, counsel for the complainant. ORDER (Passed on 21.11. 2013) By this revision, the petidon-"- has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No.07/2012 modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.415/2011, whereby the trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of to fuiLher undergo simple imprisonment for three months in which the Court below While partly allowing the appeal, the Court below has maihtained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo sirriple imprisonment for one month. fine, e":. ;-.-.';:;^ '?, --.^// Bini The parties are entered into ^ '.ipromise which has 2. been verified by the Additional Registrar (Judl.). As per the report of the Addl. Reg. (Judl.), the parties have voluntarily entered into compromise. Consequently, the application (IA No.2) is allowed. The 3. petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. —— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge