( 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.561 of 2007. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.561 of 2007. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.561 of 2007. Mr Dashrath Sadashiv Chavan ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr S. D. Dharmadhikari with D. Shejal & M. Chatage, 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 : 25.06.2008. DATED : 25.06.2008. DATED : 25.06.2008. 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 is directed the judgment and order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sangli partly ( 2 ) confirming the order and judgment dated 29.1.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jath in Regular Criminal Case no. 138 of 1998 and thereby convicting the applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the conviction punishable under Section 511 of the I.P.C. awarded by the Trial Court came to be set aside. 4. Having heard both parties and having seen the evidence available on record through which I was taken, it is not possible for me to take a view other than the view taken by the Courts below since appreciation of the evidence done by the trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court is legal and proper. Considering the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895 vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895 vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895, it is not possible to reappreciate the evidence once again. In ultimate analysis no fault can be found with the impugned order. 5. In the result, I do not find any case having been made out to interfere with the view ( 3 ) taken. The View taken by both the Courts below to the extent it holds field is legal and reasonable passed on sound reasoning. 6. In the result, the revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.