Criminal Revision No.99 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.99 of 1994 Date of decision: February 06, 2008 Dial Singh … Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Dial Singh complainant against the acquittal of respondents Vijay Kumar, Hukam Chand, Raj Kumar son of Hukam Chand, Chiman Lal son of Mool Chand, Chiman Lal son of Sat Pal and Dal Chand @ Kayian. Prosecution has examined Dial Singh PW-9 and Bal Singh PW-10. Admittedly, State had accepted the findings of the Court below and has not preferred application for leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court had taken into consideration delay in sending report to the Court below and non-mentioning of the name of accused in rough site plan. It was concluded by trial Court that the FIR was recorded after 4.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence and the delay was used for consultation and deliberations to introduce false witnesses. The trial Court had doubted the presence of both the witnesses Dial Singh and Criminal Revision No.99 of 1994 2 Bal Singh on the place of occurrence. Trial Court has also taken into account that Vijay Kumar accused was admitted in the hospital and he was sought to be falsely implicated. The findings of the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. In the revisional Court, the scope is very limited. In case of appeal against acquittal also, the Court will apply a test that whether the view taken by the trial Court as a one view, which is possible or not. It may not be said that the view taken by the trial Court was the one which can never be formulated. In view of the findings returned by the trial Court, which can be said to be well reasoned, no patent illegality or irregularity has been brought to my notice. Finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment, no interference is called for. Hence, present revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 6, 2008. rps