1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.282 OF 2009 Maya Atmaram Kamble APPLICANT VERSUS Atmaram S/o.Vaijinath Kamble and others RESPONDENTS Mr.K.A.Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent no.11/State Mr.A.N.Gaddime, learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 10 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 17/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present revision application, the original complainant has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the 4th Jt. J.M.F.C. Latur in RCC No.681/2004 wherein these respondent no.1 to 10 were acquitted from an offence punishable u/s. 494 r/w.109 of The IPC. 2. Heard learned advocate appearing for the revision applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for respondents. Considering the short question arose for consideration in this revision application, the revision application is finally heard at the stage of admission itself. 2 3. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the Trial Court of which copy is annexed, it shows that to prove the offence against respondents, only 3 witnesses were examined before the Trial Court i.e. the revision applicant/complainant herself, her father Maruti and one witness Chhotibi. Scope of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction u/s. 401 is very limited. The High Court to consider whether there is any patent illegality in appreciation of evidence or there is perverse appreciation of evidence of the material witnesses. When the offence is charged u/s. 494 r/w.109 of IPC under the Law itself to prove the alleged performance of the marriage, there are certain requirements to be proved. Admittedly, neither the complainant nor the father witnessed the alleged marriage. The only witness examined on the point of performance of the alleged marriage is Chhotibi. On acceptance of her evidence as it is, it do not disclose or anywhere comply with the ingredients of section 494 of IPC which required to be proved against respondent no.1 to 10. On clear reading of the judgment impugned, in the present revision application, no law point is involved. Neither any improper or perverse appreciation of the material evidence laid before the Trial Court at the hands of Trial Court is proved. In the premise, the revision application sans merit and liable to be dismissed. Hence accordingly the revision application is dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.rev.appl.282-09