IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 117 of 2003. Date of Decision: June 15, 2010. ____________________________________________________________ Piare Lal. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. for respondent No1. Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 is dead. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (oral): The instant revision petition has been directed against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.115-I of 2001/ 5-II of 2002, on 30.1.2003 under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the prayer to set-aside the acquittal and convict the respondents, for the offence aforesaid. 2. At the very outset, I would like to say that the High Court cannot convert acquittal of the respondents into the conviction, while exercising the powers in revision, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - by virtue of sub-Section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The petitioner was running a jewellery shop, the theft was committed from his house during the intervening night when neither the petitioner nor his family members were present in the house. The house was broken open and theft of cash and jewellery kept in his residence alongwith some other articles were stolen by someone. There was no eye witness. 4. On suspicion, the respondents were arrested and recoveries of cash and some other articles were effected, but the learned trial Court did not find enough and convincing evidence to convict the respondents, as such, they were acquitted. The case property i.e. the original FDR, ornaments and amount of Rs.85,000/- in cash were handed over to the petitioner Piare Lal, on supurdari by the Court, whereas, PW5 Hari Pal claimed an amount of Rs.31,400/- belonging to him and the respondent Raj Kumar took the plea that the amount of Rs.32,000/- was his own money, whereas Rs.31,400/- and Rs.32,000/- were recovered from PW5 Hari Pal and Raj Kumar respondent respectively. Thus, vide its final order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.63,400/- (31,400 + - 3 - 32,000/-) aforesaid in the Court with the Naib Nazir, who shall deposit it in the nationalized bank in the shape of FDR, for a period of one year in the first instance. It was also ordered that the persons establishing the recovery of the amount have a right to the said amount by filing the civil suit(s) would be entitled to receive it as per the orders of the Civil Court. In case they fail to prove the title, it shall be confiscated to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has not assailed this part of the order under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well settled that the revisional powers of the High Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest at a point of law, which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any error in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court for the interference by this Court in revision. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to establish his title by filing a regular civil suit, as directed by the learned trial Court, the acquittal of the respondents - 4 - No.2 and 3 would in no way effect the release of the amount to the person establishing his claim in the suit. 6. The revision petition stands dismissed. 7. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh) Judge. June 15, 2010. (Pds)