IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2008 Vasant Jagannath Bankar & ors. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. A.B.Avhad i/b. A.I.Deshmukh for the applicants. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 12th September, 2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.106/2004 and Criminal Appeal No.118/2007 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nashik whereby conviction recorded by the trial Court vide its order dated 31st August, 2004 came to be confirmed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants extensively took me through the evidence of each and every witnesses to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse as such unsustainable for want of proper appreciation of evidence. 4. The learned A.P.P., appearing for the State, strongly opposed this application contending that the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicants- accused and prayed for dismissal of revision. 5. Having heard both parties; having examined the judgment and orders passed by the trial Court as well as the the appellate Court and looking to the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court in paras-17, 18 and 19 of its judgment together with appreciation of evidence done and the facts, on the basis of which inferences are drawn, no fault can be found with the view taken in the impugned orders. The view taken by the Courts below is reasonable and possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case which can be supported on the basis of evidence available on record. No perversity or unreasonable approach on the part of Courts below could be pointed out by the applicant. No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below which are supported by evidence on record. - 3 - 6. This Court not being a Court of appeal, cannot substitute its view in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is not only limited in scope but also is discretionary. The Court interferes in the revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional cases of flagrant miscarriage of justice as held by Apex Court in the case of State of State of State of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. If two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the higher Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court is the settled law (see Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala, 1977 SC 701). 7. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to entertain this revision application. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE