1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 242 OF 2008 Sadhu Eknath Chikane. ... Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. Mr. Abhijit Deshmukh for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. DATED : 4TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. P. P. for the State. 2. I have gone through the orders passed by both the courts below. Both are well reasoned orders based on the evidence available on record. The appreciation of the evidence so done, cannot be faulted. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out as to which part of the evidence was excluded from consideration or which irrelevant part of consideration has crept in the order. He also could not point out any perverse approach on the part of either of the Courts below in 2 appreciating the evidence. 4. Considering the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as held by the apex court in the case of C.P.Fernandes v/s Union Territory of Goa, AIR 1977 SC 135, the revisional jurisdiction can not be invoked so as to interfere with the orders of the courts below. 5. The view taken by both the courts below is a reasonable and possible view. This Court not being a court of appeal cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its view in revisional jurisdiction of this court as held in State of Rajasthan v/s Gurcharandas Chadha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. 6. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Sd/- (V. C. DAGA, J.)