( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.175 of 2003 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.175 of 2003 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.175 of 2003 Varsha Ramesh Kirve, ..Applicant. Vs. Ramesh Tukaram Kirve and Ors ..Respondents. Mr P. D. Pise, i/b Ms A.R.S. Baxi, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State / Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 28.04.2008. DATED : 28.04.2008. DATED : 28.04.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. Perused application and the material available on record. 3. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-1-2003 passed in R.C.C.No. 436 of 1993 passed by the ( 2 ) learned the IV Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, III Court, Kalyan awarding punishment to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code holding that accused no.1 Ramesh married second time with accused no.2 Usha, during subsistence of the first marriage with the complainant Varsha and that rest of the accused have abetted the commission of offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The present applicant is seeking enhancement of the punishment contending that the the sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for six months is insufficient and it needs to be enhanced considering the gravity of the offence. 5. When this matter was called out for hearing on 5.10.2007 the applicant was directed to find out as to whether the impugned order was challenged by respondent No.1-accused who was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment as indicated. The matter was adjourned granting ten ( 3 ) days time to the applicant. This matter, thereafter, came for hearing on 15.10.2007. The learned counsel for the applicant was unable to make any statement in that behalf for want of necessary information, with the result, the revision application was heard on merits. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and having gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court, I do not see any case having been made out for enhancement of the punishment. It is within the discretion of the Trial Court to determine the quantum of punishment. The discretion has been properly exercised by the Trial Court while imposing punishment. I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. 7. This Court not being a Court of appeal cannot substitute its own view in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is not only limited in scope but also it is discretionary. The Court interferes in the revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional cases ( 4 ) of flagrant miscarriage of justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. 8. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the revision application has no merit. Same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.