( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2000 Mr.Jagannath Dhondu Khot .. Applicant. Versus Mr.Waman Vitthal Navale & Anr. .. Respondents. Mrs.Teja Katdare for the applicant. Mr.Sagar Kasar i/b.Mr.B.G.Tangsali for respondent No.1. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs.Katdare for the applicant, Mr.Sagar Kasar for respondent No.1 and Mr.K.V.Saste for the State. 2. Learned Advocate Mr.Saste clarified that the State has no intention to file Appeal against the judgement and order dated 10.5.2000 by which the respondent No.1 was acquitted in Special Case No.4 of 1990. 3. This Revision is filed by the F.I.R. complainant on the basis of which the Special Case No.4 of 1990 came to be initiated against the respondent No.1. After the acquittal of respondent No.1 by order dated 10.5.2000, the original complainant is aggrieved by the said order of acquittal and has filed this revision. ( 2 ) 4. I have heard the learned Advocate on both the sides. After having gone through the entire record, the learned Trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent No.1. According to the learned Advocate Mrs.Katdare, the learned Trial Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence in the proper perspective and that has resulted in passing the impugned order and according to her, this impugned order is required to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by admitting this revision. 5. In my view, this Court should be slow in taking up the revision in a case where the matter purely relates to appreciation of the evidence by the learned Trial Judge. In my view, it would not be proper for this Court to take up the task of re-appreciating the evidence particularly in a revisional jurisdiction. Hence the revision cannot be admitted. No other defect was shown in the impugned order hence the revision is dismissed. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)