Crl. Revision No.1014 of 2002 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1014 of 2002 Date of decision: January 12, 2011. Avdesh Kumar ...Appellant(s) v. Parmod Kumar Sharma & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Devinder Kumar Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri APS Deol, Senior Advocate, with Shri Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant – Avdesh Kumar for setting aside acquittal of the accused-respondents for an offence under Section 302 IPC. In the alternative, it is prayed that sentence awarded under Section 304 Part II IPC be enhanced. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the State had preferred no appeal against the acquittal and for enhancement. This Court had made an observation that the revisional Court's jurisdiction is limited to disturb the finding of acquittal in the revision petition filed against acquittal. The Hon'ble apex Court has taken consistent view in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another; D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Crl. Revision No.1014 of 2002 -: 2 :- Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352); Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444; Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907 that high Court will not re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence in a revisional jurisdiction to disturb the finding of the Court below in case acquittal is based on well founded reasons. Counsel for the petitioner, who is present along with the complainant – Avdesh Kumar, has stated that in Crl. Appeal No.438-SB of 2002 preferred by the accused-respondent, vide Crl. Misc. No.29789 of 2010, a compromise dated 20.5.2010, arrived at between the accused and the complainant, has been placed on record as Annexure A-1 on the file. It is further stated that the compromise deed is supported by the affidavit of the complainant. Counsel states that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, he will not press the present revision petition and the same be dismissed as such. In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed, as not pressed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] January 12, 2011. Judge kadyan