Crl. Rev. No.1262 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1262 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.7.2009 Rajender Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 5th March, 2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, whereby respondents No.2 & 3 were acquitted. Respondents Iqbal Hussain and Hakimudin were tried in case FIR No.21 dated 23rd March, 2001, registered at Police Station Bapoli, District Panipat, under Sections 418, 419, 420 & 506 IPC. Complainant Rajender Singh has filed the instant revision petition against acquittal of Iqbal Hussain and Hakimudin respondents. A certificate issued by Superintendent of Advocate General, Haryana is also annexed with the instant petition mentioning that no proposal has been received in their office from District Magistrate, Panipat for filing appeal against acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given Crl. Rev. No.1262 of 2009 2 careful thought to the facts of the case. I find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court whereby the respondents No.2 & 3 have been rightly acquitted. The findings of the court below cannot be said to be perverse. The court has formulated one view which is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the State. Since State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of respondents No.2 & 3, the scope of interference in an order of acquittal in a revision filed by the complainant is very limited, particularly when no demonstrable perversity is apparent on the record. Learned counsel has not been able to pin point any flaw which would call for interference by this court while invoking revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial is pointed out, the revisional court will not interfere. I find no merit in the instant revision petition to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 23, 2009 'rajpal'