1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2010 Annasaheb Kallappa Upadhye ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. T. S. Ingale for Applicant. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri – APP for State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA , J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. 2. Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 27th March 2008 passed by the trial court whereby the applicant – accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for seven days; for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for seven days; for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty only) in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for four days, for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty only) in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for four days; as well as the order dated 4th March 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of conviction came to be dismissed and the conviction awarded by the trial court came to be confirmed. 3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court failed to consider that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not adequate enough to prove the charge, particularly, under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the officer who was the head of the demolition squad did not issue any notice or gave information to the applicant with regard to the demolition. Similarly, he had no authority in law to undertake demolition and in absence of the evidence to that effect adduced by the prosecution, trial court as well as the lower appellate court erred in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable 3 under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that the witnesses examined by the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the applicant for the other offences also. It is therefore contended that the judgments impugned are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsels. It is well settled that the revisional powers of this court are very limited, which does not entitle this court to reconsider / re appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Perusal of the decisions rendered by the courts below would show that both these courts have taken into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in order to prove the offences charged against the applicant. Learned counsel failed to point out that there was material contradiction or omission in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was either not noticed by the courts below or failed to consider the repercussions thereof. On the other hand, both the courts have held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes the charge framed against the applicant. 5. For the reasons stated herein above, no case is made out for showing any indulgence. Criminal Revision Application dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.)