Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad for offences under Sections 419, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The conviction is based solely on the identification of the appellant by two witnesses, namely, Jayantilal Vyas and Karsan Lad. The evidence of both these witnesses has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court and on the basis of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have arrived at concurrent findings of fact resulting in the conviction of the appellant, The veracity and credibility of the evidence of these two witnesses is assailed before us on behalf of the appellant, but we do not see any reason to interfere with the appreciation of this evidence, by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court.

3. It is a wholesome rule evolved by this court, which has been consistently followed. that in a criminal case, while hearing an appeal by special leave, this Court should not ordinarily embark upon a reappreciation of the evidence, when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have agreed in their appreciation of the evidence and arrived at concurrent findings of fact. It must be remembered that this Court is not a regular Court of appeal which an accused may approach as of right in criminal cases. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction which this Court exercises when it entertains an appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by its very nature, is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice. Mere errors in appreciation of the evidence are not enough to attract this invigilatory jurisdiction. Or else this Court would be converted into a regular Court of appeal where every judgment of the High Court in a criminal case would be liable to be scrutinised for its correctness, That is not the function of this Court.

4. Here, both the witnesses Jayantilal Vyas and Karsan Lad were believed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. We have carefully gone through the evidence of Jayantilal Vyas and we do not find any such infirmity in it as would warrant interference by us. The only material circumstance deposed to by Jayantilal Vyas was that when he went to Karsan Lad, who was the Ward Keeper in the Construction Ward, for issue of hack-saw blades at about 11.30 a. m. on 10th June, 1966, he saw the appellant seated by the side of Karsan Lad. On Seeing him, the appellant asked what was the purpose of his visit to which he replied stating that he had come to obtain hack-saw blades. He then enquired of the appellant as to why he was there, to which the reply was that "as there was shortage of staff, he was deputed for work" by the Executive Engineer, There is nothing unnatural about this incident. Jayantilal Vyas and the appellant both worked as Tally clerks in the office of the Executive Engineer (Construction) at Ahmedabad for about eighteen months and merely because they worked in two different departments of the same office it cannot be said that Jayantilal Vyas could not have known the appellant. Jayantilal Vyas was at the relevant time working as a pricing clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer (Construction) at Abu Road and it is indeed difficult to see why, if a false witness had to be summoned, the Railway or the Police authorities should have picked out clerk from Abu Road for the purpose implicating the appellant. If Jayantilal Vyas did not in fact come down to Ahmedabad and go to the Construction Ward for the purpose of issue of Hacksaw blades, the Railway and the Police authorities would not have dared to call him as a witness to give this evidence because he could have been easily falsified by the production of records from office of the Executive Engineer (Construction) at Abu R