Criminal Revision No.769 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 769 of 1994 Date of decision: February 07, 2008 Lal Chand … Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Mr.H.S.Bhullar has admitted that the State had not preferred any appeal against the acquittal as envisaged under Section 378 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Abohar on 12th July, 1994 acquitted the respondents and concluded as under: “9. Keeping in view the delay in recording the statement of Lal Chand, delay in lodging the FIR, the fact that the FIR was not registered at Police Post Panjkosi though it is near to the place of occurrence, there is previous enmity between the parties and only the interested witnesses i.e. both cousin brothers have been examined, the possibility of the injuries on the person of Lal Chand being self suffered being not ruled out, no person from the Dhahni of Kanshi Ram has been joined as independent person and above all Criminal Revision No.769 of 1994 2 the Investigating Officer himself has given his own opinion vide Ex.PA/3 to the conclusion that no such occurrence has ever taken place and false case has been registered against the accused because of enmity between the complainant and the accused party. So the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence against any of the accused. Thus, the accused are acquitted of the charges. File be consigned to the record room.” The respondents have been acquitted for the offence under sections 323/ 324/ 325/ 326/ 148/ 149 IPC. In the present case, no appeal against acquittal was filed. Law is well settled that in case of appeal against acquittal, the only fact to be taken into consideration by the High Court is whether the view formulated by the trial Court is one view which is probable or not. Powers of revisional Court are further limited to the extent to examine whether the findings of the trial Court are perverse or not. Revisional Court will also exercise powers if illegality has been committed. In the present case, Mr.Bhullar has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity. Opinion formulated by the trial Court in acquitting the respondents is also not perverse, rather it can be said that it is one view which is possible. With these observations, present revision petition is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 07, 2008. rps