HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No.1174 of 2005 JUDGMENT: There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. This revision case is disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5. 3. The petitioner is the de facto complainant. She is the wife. She filed the complaint against her husband and, mother and brothers of the husband. She alleged that the four accused treated her cruelly and committed the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The prosecution examined five witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. Considering that no case was made out against the accused, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Utnoor, acquitted all the accused. Assailing the judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant (P.W.1) laid the present revision case. 4. The prosecution examined the father of P.W.1 as P.W.2. and P.Ws.3 and 4, independent witnesses. They are related to both sides. P.W.5 is supposed to be an independent witness. He did not support the prosecution story. 5. The 9th witness in the charge sheet (LW-9) was the investigating officer. He died before trial. Considering that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 was not sufficient, judgment of acquittal was recorded by the trial Court. 6. Sri Nazeer Khan, learned counsel for the accused, primarily concentrated his submissions on the powers of the revisional Court in a revision against acquittal. He placed reliance upon Sheetala Prasad Vs. Sri Kant[1]. In that case, the Supreme Court reconsidered the scope of revision when the revision is laid by a private complaint. It was observed by the Supreme Court: “Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of a private complainant: (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.” 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that this is not a case where any of the categories as mentioned by the Supreme Court occurred for the revision petitioner to question the order of the trial Court. It may be noticed that the Supreme Court observed in this case that categories 1 to 5 as mentioned in para-12 of the judgment and noted above, are not exhaustive categories. Therefore, I consider that this decision is not an authority to dismiss this revision. 8. It needs to be examined whether this is a fit case where the merits of the case can be gone into notice whether the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous. 9. I n Sama Subhash Reddy v. S.Lalitha[2], R.Kantarao, J, for the High Court of A.P. considered the scope of revision against acquittal. It was observed that the High Court would not set aside the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court on the mere ground that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. The High Court observed that retrial by the trial Court could be ordered, if the material evidence available on record was totally overlooked by the trial Court or the finding of the trial Court was perverse. Inter alia, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the petitioner failed to show that the judgment of the trial Court was perverse and that the trial Court did not take note of the evidence adduced before it. 10. As already pointed out at the very beginning, there is no representation for the petitioner. This revision is disposed of without hearing the revision petitioner. The question of the revision petitioner failing to show that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, therefore, does not arise. However, I scanned through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. The trial Court fairly considered the evidentiary value of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and concluded that the prosecution case was not made out. I agree with the learned counsel for the accused 1 to 4 that the judgment of the trial Court was well considered and does not need any interference. 11. In Paramata John v. State of A.P.[3], a Single Judge of the High Court of A.P. considered the scope of the revision. It was observed that the revisional power of the High Court should be exercised when there is glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on a point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. As rightly observed by the learned counsel for the accused, there is neither a glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error of a point of law leading to the miscarriage of justice in the present case. 12. Regarding the appreciation of evidence, the learned counsel for the accused placed reliance upon State of U.P. v. Raja Ram[4]. In that case, the discrepancy between the evidence of the main witness and other witnesses was considered to be sufficient to acquit the accused. In P.Gangadhar v. State of A.P.[5], a Single Judge of the High Court of A.P. observed that the facts deposed by a witness not finding place in the F.I.R. and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness is tantamount to improvement and should not be considered. 13. Upon the strength of these two decisions, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.1 on the one side and P.Ws.2 to 4 on the other side would entail acquittal of the accused. 14. I am afraid that the fundamental question is whether the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or reasonable and not whether the judgment was otherwise meritorious or not. I had already concluded that the judgment of the learned trial Judge was definitely not perverse. It was also reasonable and supported by proper appreciation of the evidence. The question of going into the merits of the evidence in this revision, therefore, is not called for. 15. Finally, the learned counsel for the accused placing reliance upon Mothe Rammolian Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh[6], and contended that the Courts did not have territorial jurisdiction as the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the Court. I am not able to agree with this observation of the learned counsel for the accused. The accused are residents within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. I, therefore, consider that the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the case. 16. Be that as it may, there is no perversity or patent error in the conclusion reached by the trial Court. I, therefore, consider it not appropriate to reappraise the evidentiary value of the witnesses. This revision case consequently is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ 15-09-2011 kvr [1] (2010) 2 S.C.C. 190 [2] 2011 CRI.L.J. 28 [3] 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 332 (A.P.) [4] 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 35 (SC) [5] 2006 (1) ALD (CRL.) 493 (AP) [6] 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 368 (AP)