IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1415 of 2007 Date of decision: November 7, 2011 Hardeep Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Nirmaljit Singh, Advocate for Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 7. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of discharge of the respondents. As per the allegation, the respondents had cut the Sunflower crop, which has led to registration of a case and prosecution of the respondents. The record would show that the petitioner as well as the respondents were in joint possession of the property and accordingly, the charge under Sections 379/427/449 IPC would not be made out. In addition, the counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 has referred to various judgments in regard to scope of interference by the revisional Court in the order of acquittal. As held in Johar and ors. Vs. Mangal Prasad and anr., AIR 2008, Supreme Court 1165, the revision against the order of acquittal though may not be barred, but jurisdiction is severally restricted. The revisional Court has a limited jurisdiction even in case where the order of trial Court was not found to be passed without considering the relevant evidence or passed by considering the irrelevant evidence. Interference by entering into merits and re-appreciating entire evidence was held improper Criminal Revision No.1415 of 2007 -2- by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Johar's case (supra). Accordingly, this case does not fall within the parameters of revisional jurisdiction to call for interference in the order of acquittal. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. November 7, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE