IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1264 of 2009. Date of Decision : October 21, 2009. Joginder Singh ...... Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Haryana, and another ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.04.2007, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, vide which the petitioner has been held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C. and had been released on probation for a period of one year as also the order dated 28.02.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, on an appeal preferred by the petitioner, rejecting the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings as recorded by the Courts below with regard to conviction of the petitioner under Section 451 I.P.C., is not sustainable. He further contends that the evidence led by the prosecution is not enough to hold the petitioner guilty of offence, for which he has been convicted. His further contention is that husband of the complainant is a habitual offender under the Electricity Act and, therefore, out of vengeance, the present F.I.R. has been preferred by the complainant and the petitioner has been wrongly convicted by the Courts below. He on this basis prays for setting aside the findings as recorded by the lower court and prays for acquittal of the petitioner. CRR No. 1264 of 2009 . I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as also two impugned judgments. Both the Courts below have duly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. The findings recorded by the Courts below are fully justified and based on the evidence placed on record for the consideration of the Court. No illegality has been committed by the Courts below, which would call for any interference by this Court, while exercising its restricted revisional jurisdiction. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments has held that the powers being exercised by the Revisional Court are limited in nature, especially to set aside the order of acquittal and that too at the instance of private party. In the case of Mahendra Partap Singh Versus Sarju Singh and another, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 707, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has said that the High Court is entitled to set aside the acquittal in a revision or order of retrial, where there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not entitled to interfere, if wrong view is taken by Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. However, the High Court can interfere, if there is an error on point of law or no appraisal of evidence at all. The High Court can also exercise its jurisdiction, if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence, which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. This position has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Akalu Ahir Versus Ramdeo Ram, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2145. This has been the consistent -2- CRR No. 1264 of 2009 . view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which has been followed by the Courts. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar, 2002 S.C. 2907, again this position has been reiterated. By now, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts, should not be lightly exercised, particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. This jurisdiction being limited one, should not be equated and exercised as one which an Appellate Court exercises, which is much wider as the Court exercising such jurisdiction can go into the question of facts and law and convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. The revisional jurisdiction and that too at the instance of complainant has to be exercised by the High Courts with care, caution, circumspect and sparingly that too in very exceptional cases. Keeping these principles in view, no legal infirmity in the procedure or conduct of trial has been pointed out, which would call for interference by this Court as the assertion of counsel for the petitioner is non consideration of evidence by the Trial Court in the proper perspective, while reaching to conclusion. This cannot be said to be a case, which would call for interference by this Court or one which would fall within the parameters, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction as has been laid down in various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction. In view of the above, the present revision petition does not call for any interference by this Court and, thus, stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE October 21, 2009. sjks. -3-