Crl. Rev. No.2308 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2308 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.7.2009 Ranjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30th January, 2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Bathinda, whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted. Respondent Gamdoor Singh was tried in case FIR No.3 dated 9th February, 2003, registered at Police Station Cantt. Bathinda, under Sections 279 & 337 IPC. Complainant Ranjit Singh has filed the instant revision petition against acquittal of Gamdoor Singh respondent. A certificate issued by Superintendent of Advocate General, Punjab is also annexed with the instant petition mentioning that no proposal has been received in their office from District Magistrate, Bathinda for filing appeal against acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given Crl. Rev. No.2308 of 2008 2 careful thought to the facts of the case. I find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court whereby the respondent No.2 has been rightly acquitted. The findings of the court below cannot be said to be perverse. The court has formulated one view which is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the State. Since State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of respondent No.2, the scope of interference in an order of acquittal in a revision filed by the complainant is very limited that too when some demonstrable perversity is apparent on the record. Learned counsel has not been able to pin point any flaw which would call for interference by this court while invoking my revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial or patent illegality is pointed out, the revisional court will not interfere. I find no merit in the instant revision petition to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 23, 2009 'rajpal'