( 1 ) FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.150 of 2007 Tanaji Buvasaheb Deshmukh. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Court or Judge’s Order. Memorandum of Coram : apperance,Court’s : Orders & Directions : and Registrar’s : Order. : -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr M. K. Kocharekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. V.C. DAGA,J. V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH JULY, 2007. 4TH JULY, 2007. 4TH JULY, 2007. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.10.2006 passed in Regular Criminal Case No.11 of 1989 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malshiras. 3. In the light of the submissions and after going through the impugned order, it is ( 2 ) not possible to hold that the Court below has committed serious illegality warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The finding facts are recorded and based on that the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 9 are acquitted for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148,149, 337, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. 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 State State of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR AIR AIR 1979 SC 1895. 1979 SC 1895. 1979 SC 1895. 5. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere in the revision. The revision application is dismissed and disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)