IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 153 of 2009. Decided on: 26th February, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Vidya Devi ….Petitioner. Versus Purshotam Chand and others ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral). Heard. The petitioner had lodged an FIR under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Challan was presented against the respondents. They were tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court. Against their acquittal, the State did not file appeal, as such, the petitioner assailed the acquittal of the respondents before the Court of Sessions by filing revision petition, which was dismissed. Now the instant petition has been filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective and came to the wrong conclusion. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - In revision petition the legality, propriety and correctness of the order impugned was examined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) and he did not find any such discrepancy, as such the petition was dismissed. As a matter of fact, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is under obligation to prima facie satisfy this Court that the Courts below had acted contrary to the established principle of law or that there was any error of jurisdiction which has caused miscarriage of justice. To come to a particular result on the evidence adduced, not suitable to one party cannot be said to be a miscarriage of justice. In fact, these provisions are not a substitute for appeal wherein the entire evidence led before the learned trial Court would be re- appreciated. In view of above, the instant petition is dismissed. February 26, 2010. (Surinder Singh),J. (rc)