IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2008 Mrs.Indu Nagnath Jogdandkar. ... Applicant. V/s. Kamlesh Shankar Kokane & ors. ... Respondents. Aniket Vagai for the applicant. A.J.Chougule with N.S.Deokar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.4- State. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 31st October, 2007 passed in Sessions Case No.1043/2000 by Second Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge of Greater Mumbai. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant took me through the evidence available on record, but could not point out as to which part of the evidence has not been considered by the trial Court or which part of the findings suffers from perverse approach. As a matter of fact, the impugned order demonstrates dissection of evidence and appreciation thereof. The findings recorded can be supported on the basis of evidence available on record. 4. In my opinion, on proper appreciation of evidence acquittal of the accused is recorded by the trial Court. In the case of C.P.Fernandes v. Union C.P.Fernandes v. Union C.P.Fernandes v. Union territory of Goa, Daman & Diu territory of Goa, Daman & Diu territory of Goa, Daman & Diu, AIR 1977 SC 135, the Apex Court has ruled that the Court should not interfere with the trial Court view unless found to be unreasonable or perverse. If two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the higher Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court is the settled law (see Varghese Thomas v. State of Varghese Thomas v. State of Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala Kerala Kerala, 1977 SC 701). 5. This Court not being a Court of appeal, cannot substitute its view in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is not only limited in scope but also is discretionary. The Court interferes in the revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional cases of flagrant miscarriage of justice as held by Apex Court in the case of State of State of State of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. - 3 - 6. Having examined the legal position, no fault can be found either with the appreciation of evidence or with the view taken. The view taken by the trial Court is reasonable and possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case which can be supported on the basis of evidence available on record. No perversity or unreasonable approach on the part of the trial Court could be pointed out by the applicant. 7. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to entertain this revision application. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE