IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.836 of 2024 Balwant Singh …….....Revisionist Vs. State of Uttarakhand …...... Respondent Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the revisionist. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 25.04.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.90 of 2020, State of Uttarakhand vs. Balwant Singh, by the court Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh (“the case”). By which, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 353 IPC and sentenced three months imprisonment with a fine of `1000/-. Challenge has also been made to the judgment and order dated 08.11.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2022, Balwant Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, by which, the appeal has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged by the PW2 Sub Inspector K.C. Arya. According to it, in a Panchayat Election, on 11.10.2019, at the Polling Booth Rauteda at about 04:30 PM a person forcibly entered into the Polling Booth and when the security persons signaled him to stop, he did not stop. He entered into the Polling Booth. The Presiding Officer did call the police inside the Polling Booth. Thereafter that person was sent out from the Polling Booth. The FIR records that the local persons named that person as Balwant Singh S/o Udey Singh. Based on this FIR, Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Sections 186, 353, 504, 506, 171-F IPC was lodged at Police Station Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh. Investigation was undertaken and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist, which is basis of the case. On 08.03.2021, charges under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC was framed against the revisionist, which he denied and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove his case the prosecution, in total examined eight witnesses namely, PW1 Constable Mukesh Dobriyal, PW2 Sub Inspector K.C. Arya, PW3 Abdul Samad, PW4 Devendra Giri Goswami, PW5 Constable Bharat Kumar, PW6 Chandra Singh Bhakuni, PW7 Sub Inspector Hem Chandra Pant and PW8 Sub Inspector Rakesh Rai. 3 5. After prosecution witnesses the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced hereinbefore. It has been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the revision would submit that the impugned judgments and orders are bad in the eyes of law; the revisionist has not been identified by any of the witnesses; the revisionist has not been arrested at the spot. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that the witnesses at the spot had named the revisionist as a person, who created noise inside the polling booth. 8. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and orders. Appreciation of evidence is not generally done until and unless the finding is perverse; inadmissible material is considered; legally admissible material is not considered. 9. PW1 Constable Mukesh Dobriyal has stated that on 11.10.2019, in the Polling Booth some noise was heard from inside the Polling Booth. The police person, 4 who was on security duty at the gate was called inside the Polling Booth by the Presiding Officer. He went inside and asked the person, who was creating noise, to leave the Polling Booth, but that person shoved him and started arguing. Thereafter, he was taken out from the Polling Booth. 10. PW2 Sub Inspector K.C. Arya is the first informant. He has proved his report. PW3 Abdul Samad was a Polling Officer at the relevant time. He has stated that he heard some noise inside the Polling Booth at the relevant time. He heard people shouting Balwant…. Balwant. But, he has stated that he does not know the revisionist personally. 11. PW4 Devendra Giri Goswami has also stated about the incident that one person forcibly entered into the Polling Booth. He has also not identified the person, who created that scene. 12. PW5 Constable Bharat Kumar had lodged the First Information Report. PW6 Chandra Singh Bhakuni was also the Polling Officer at the date of incident. He has also stated about the incident, but in the cross- examination, he says that he does not know the revisionist. According to him, the people who were gathered at the spot were saying that he is Balwant 5 Singh. PW7 Sub Inspector Hem Chandra Pant is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the initial investigation. PW8 Sub Inspector Rakesh Rai finally conducted the investigation and submitted the charge- sheet. 13. Admittedly, report was not lodged in the case by any of the Polling Officer or the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station. PW1 Constable Mukesh Dobriyal has stated that a person named Balwant Singh has pushed him. This witness has also not stated that it is the revisionist Balwant Singh, who had done it. In the entire prosecution evidence, it has not even been shown that it is the revisionist, who was present at the Polling Booth and who obstructed the public servants in discharge of their duties. As stated, the Presiding Officer or Polling Officer of the particularly Polling Booth did not make any complaint. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the revisionist is bad in the eyes of law. It is without any evidence. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and orders are bad in the eyes of law. They deserve to be set aside and revision allowed. 14. The revision is allowed. 15. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside. 6 16. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 353 IPC. 17. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith record be forwarded to the court below for compliance. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.01.2025 Sanjay