IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.903 of 2008 MUNESHWAR PASWAN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4 1.5.2009 The appellate court by affirming the Judgment and order of conviction under sections 323 and 341 of I.P.C. modified the sentence into one of execution of a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year. The petitioner being aggrieved by judgment of the appellate court passed in Cr. Appeal No.11/07 / 2/08 as well as of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad, in Trial No.1232/05 has filed the instant revision application. The trial arose out of Complaint Case No.167/02. Learned counsel submits that the appellate court has not considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses in right earnest. From perusal of Judgments of both the courts it would appear that evidence adduced on record has been duly considered. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Dr.Stephens vs. Nasib Alam, reported in 1951 SC 196, as well as in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh vrs. Saryug Singh reported in 1968 Cr.L.J. 865, has held that the revisional court would not be entitled to interfere with the impugned judgment and order even if there is misappreciation of evidence. This Court can interfere in such matter only if there is manifest illegality or if the impugned Judgment has caused gross 2 miscarriage of justice. I do not find that the petitioner has brought this case within the aforesaid purview and this application is thus dismissed. However, taking into view the nature of allegations and also the fact that this is the first offence of the petitioners, this Court observes that the conviction under aforesaid minor sections would not cause any disqualification under section 12 of the Prabation of Offenders Act. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)